The Assembly met at noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Royal Assent: Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Act 2002

Mr Speaker: I wish to inform Members that the Health and Personal Social Services Bill has received Royal Assent. The Health and Personal Social Services Act (Northern Ireland) 2002 became law on 4 October 2002.

Events of 4 October 2002 in Parliament Buildings

Mr Speaker: It is clear that several Members wish to raise points of order, which is understandable, and I shall do my best to accommodate those requests. However, I caution Members and remind them that in criminal matters the sub judice rule applies strictly from the moment a person is charged until the verdict and sentence have been announced. Members must also be aware that as regards parliamentary privilege covering what they say in the Chamber, it applies to the law of defamation and not to other matters. It will not give them protection, for example, in matters of contempt of court, and I draw that to Members’ attention.
Several Members have indicated that they wish to make points of order and I will now try to take them. I will be unable to take them in the order that Members wish, but I shall do my best to accommodate them. I noticed Mr Conor Murphy’s hand first, then Ms Lewsley’s, Dr Paisley’s and Mr Foster’s. I shall take those points of order first, then continue.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will you confirm that your Office is investigating the breach of Parliament Buildings last Friday morning by armed police who did not have a warrant? In that investigation will you address the fact that members of my party were not informed by the police or Assembly staff that our offices were being searched, sealed off and raided?

Mr Speaker: I confirm to the House that I received notice of events taking place here, and briefed the Assembly Commission, whose members were with me at the Quebec National Assembly, as soon as was possible that morning. At the end of the briefing, we agreed that an emergency meeting of the Commission would be held today, after Question Time, when a report would be made.
I also made it my business to request a meeting with the Chief Constable, and that meeting was held at 3.00 pm on Saturday. The Chief Constable has subsequently corresponded with me, and that correspondence was received this morning. I expect further meetings to take place.
Those various matters are for the Speaker and the Assembly Commission to attend to, and we are doing so with all possible speed and, I hope, with conscientiousness.

Mr Roy Beggs: Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am trying to take the points of order in sequence.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Did you have any prior knowledge that the police were coming here?

Mr Speaker: As I said earlier, we must be careful about the question of sub judice. I understand that charges have been preferred, and obviously Friday’s events may bear some relation to that. Therefore, I will seek to be as open as I can with the House, but it is also my view that when there is a cliff one drives as far away from, not as close as possible to, the edge of it. I will, therefore, be careful with regard to matters of sub judice. I trust that the Member will understand if I do not give an answer on the Floor of the House.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Mr Speaker, when you were absent, events took place at one of the Doors of the House. Two Members of the Assembly were seen on television hastening journalists and television cameras into disobeying the order that on entering the House, their machines should be checked. The Members were then seen escorting the media representatives upstairs to their room, without their cameras being checked. That is a breach of the security of the House. Anything could have been brought in inside those cameras.
The two Members, Mr Gerry Kelly and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, then made statements, which were clearly heard. It was clear that they were justifying what they had done in advocating a breach of the security of the House. If the security of the House can be breached in that way, nobody’s safety can be guaranteed or provided for. If we do not have security of entrance to the House, then we have no protection in our offices.
The other matter I wish to raise is that the House should have the opportunity to debate the matter. Everyone is debating it — in the streets, in homes and schools, and in places that people frequent. The House should be discussing this urgent business. Mr Speaker, have you called a meeting of the Business Committee for it to advise Members when it will let us have an immediate discussion and proper, open-ended debate on the matter within, of course, the sub judice rules that you mentioned?

Mr Speaker: On the question of a breach of security and, indeed, breach of privilege that the Member referred to — an alleged breach of security and an alleged breach of privilege — I have asked for, and have received, some initial reports, which I am pursuing. I trust that it will not be out of order to say that I have received from Dr Paisley’s Colleague, Mr Peter Robinson, a specific letter in relation to the question of breach of privilege. I have met the Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges to advise him that he may expect questions of privilege to be raised, and I will forward Mr Peter Robinson’s letter to him.
There are complex matters involved. Several bodies in the Assembly may have responsibilities with regard to this matter. The Assembly Commission is one, the Committee on Standards and Privileges is another, and the Speaker’s Office is another. Those are just three examples. I take the matter that the Member raises very seriously, and it is being pursued. His Colleague has done that in writing, which is entirely proper.
I have called a meeting of the Business Committee for 1.00 pm today, and a meeting of the Assembly Commission for after Question Time this afternoon, to address the various issues. It is for the Business Committee to decide precisely how it handles the requests before it.
I have noted that there has been debate and discussion about these matters in all sorts of places and in the press. I have also noted some of the comments reported in the press to be factually completely incorrect. Some of those were in relation to the House and its staff. It is important to have an early debate, but it is also important to have an informed debate on the Floor of the House — informed by proper law and procedure and by the proper facts. I know that that is what the Member and the House in general would want. There is a balance to be found between expressing the quite proper feelings of anxiety, concern, and indeed anger, which I sense in the Chamber and the community, and ensuring that, as is right and proper, it is tempered by proper process and by the facts, insofar as we are able to discern them at this stage.

Mr Sam Foster: In the light of recent serious developments, particularly the implications of the potential threat to Members of the House, and being aware that the First Minister will meet the Prime Minister tomorrow, I propose that the proceedings of the Assembly —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member will resume his seat. He knows perfectly well that what he is doing is not a point of order — it is entirely out of order, and I am not prepared to accept it. I shall say no more about that.
I will say that, when I met the Chief Constable on Saturday, I received an assurance that the security of the House had not been prejudiced, or rather, the most accurate way to put it is that there was no evidence that that was the case. I trust that that is of some small assistance to Members, in view of what the Member alleged earlier.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Mr Speaker, some two weeks ago, I brought to your attention my concerns about security in and around Parliament Buildings at Stormont. In light of that, Mr Speaker, and as an interim step while these matters are being considered and discussed, I ask you to approach the Police Service of Northern Ireland to ensure that it has a greater presence — or, indeed, a presence per se, because police officers are not presently in evidence — in the Building. Without any slur on the work of the doorkeepers and those responsible for internal security, given the grave situation that we face, I suggest that there should be a greater police presence.
The referral of this matter to the Business Committee and the Assembly Commission creates a dilemma, because Sinn Féin is represented on those bodies. That causes me grave concerns. Can I just say —

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that I have been reasonably flexible with regard to points of order. I am assuming that the point of order that the Member raises is in respect of whether it is in order for him to ask for some review of security.
With regard to matters of security, the Assembly Commission has responsibility, but took an early decision to devolve that responsibility to me, as Speaker. I take that very seriously. I take seriously the concerns that the Member raised with me some time ago, and the question of proper security arrangements here. That has been a matter of ongoing and regular discussion, meetings and correspondence, and substantial and energetic activity by our staff internally. I take on board the concerns that the Member raises, but it would not be proper for me to discuss security on the Floor of the House. Indeed, that would be particularly inappropriate to the Member’s point of order if he considers what he has said.

Mr Peter Robinson: Last Friday’s events were dramatic and significant. They could not be justified unless there was significant cause for the police to enter the Building. I do not believe that the police would have acted without that just cause. It seems to be imperative that there is a debate in the Assembly at the earliest possible moment to consider those issues. I assume that in the interrupted attempt by the Ulster Unionists to make a contribution, there is a willingness on their part to have a special recognition of the impact of those events felt in the Assembly. Therefore, I trust that they will support the Democratic Unionist Party in the Business Committee today.
Moving to the —

Mr Speaker: Is there a point of order?

Mr Peter Robinson: I wrote to you, Mr Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders, which require a Member to indicate to you an intention to raise a breach of privilege and to give some indication of the nature of that breach.
On Friday, two Members encouraged — and indeed pushed through — several members of the press and media past a security check, without their being checked in person and the proper arrangements being made. They rushed them into a lift, took them through parts of the Building that are not specified for that purpose and engaged in activity that is not allowed to any other Member.

Mr Speaker: I must ask the Member to bring it to the point of order rather than recounting the detail of the substance.

Mr Peter Robinson: I understood that in advancing a breach of privilege, I must convince you that there is a prima facie case to be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

Mr Speaker: That is true, Mr Robinson, but there is no requirement for you to do so on the Floor of the House. I have accepted your correspondence, on what I regard as a very serious matter. I have met the Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and the matter will be pursued. If there is a further point of order, I am prepared to take it.

Mr Peter Robinson: I am content if you are saying that the Committee will consider the matter. Your earlier comments implied that you had indicated to the Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges that the issue would be raised. If you are saying that you are happy to refer the matter to the Committee, I am content to leave it there. That would be the appropriate place for it to be dealt with.

Mr Speaker: I am happy to confirm that I will refer it. I cannot guarantee that the Committee will discuss it; that is a matter for the Committee itself. However, I can confirm that I will refer it.
The Member raised one or two other points. He referred to a point of order that I aborted earlier. The reason that I did so is that it is not in order to simply stand up on the Floor of the House and propose a motion, which is what was being attempted. That is not in order; nor is it in order — as the Member knows because he has on occasion tried it in the past — for an emergency debate to be proposed on the Floor of the House. What is possible is for the Business Committee to meet and to address the question of whether it is agreeable to business being taken. That is the purpose of the meeting today at 1.00 pm. What the Business Committee itself decides is another matter entirely.

Mr Alex Attwood: Mr Speaker, you have rightly pointed out that there are concerns inside and outside the Chamber about all the events that occurred on Friday. It is certainly serious for anyone — any organisation or any party — who plays fast and loose with the Good Friday Agreement. That extends to more than one person and to more than one party in the Chamber.
Mr Speaker, in your capacity as Speaker of the House and in your particular responsibility for security in the House, you referred to conversations that you have had and correspondence that you have received from the Chief Constable. Would it be in order for you to share further with the Assembly the content of both those conversations and any letter or correspondence you received from the Chief Constable on events that occurred in the Building on Friday? If you are not now in a position to share that with the Assembly, when will you be able to share the content of the conversations and the correspondence?

Mr Speaker: It is in order for the Member to put the point of order, but it would not be in order for me to divulge the contents of the conversations or the correspondence at this stage, not least because the matter is sub judice — as he, being a lawyer, will know — and also because there are certain conversations on matters of security which it is inappropriate to address in any case. There will be a meeting of the Commission this afternoon; I will, again, brief the Commission as fully as I am able. I have referred to an earlier briefing, and I will keep the Commission as informed as I possibly can.
It is not unlikely that at some stage, when issues of sub judice and so on are not around, it may well be that I will have to make reference to the implications of such events in my capacity as Speaker, as Chairperson of the Assembly Commission and as having responsibility as the Member describes. I trust that he will understand that I am being as open as I possibly can, but there are certain things that it is neither right nor proper for me to speak about on the Floor of the House, particularly at this time.

Mr Roy Beggs: Will you confirm that being a Member of the House, or working in Parliament Buildings, gives no one immunity from criminal investigation, and that such persons are subject to the law within the United Kingdom?

Mr Speaker: I confirm that that is the case, and all Members would be wise to understand that. I have, by my comments at the start of these points of order, tried to draw the attention of Members to some of those points of law from which they might be vulnerable in this context. What the Member said is, of course, absolutely the case. The next Member is Mr John Kelly, and then there are a series of other Members.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Since you are the first and final arbiter of what happens in the House, were you presented with a search warrant, or was a warrant proffered to you, on the morning of this search, and if not, why not? Did any member of your staff accompany those people who searched the Sinn Féin support offices on Friday morning? Was any member of your staff present when that happened?

Mr Speaker: I understand the Member’s questions and the import of them. I am not in a position to respond, because of the sub judice rule that I have already mentioned. The Member will not have to think very hard before he finds the connection between charges that have been preferred and the question of sub judice. It is not in anyone’s interests for interference in the proper due process to be embarked upon.
In respect of the second aspect of the Member’s question, he and his Colleagues will know that we have procedures when any search is taking place, either in this context or in other more prophylactic contexts. I am assured — because I have asked — that those proper procedures were followed by our staff. I cannot say further than that.
If the Member has concerns on that, or on any other score, I would welcome his bringing those directly to my attention. I did receive a formal complaint from one of his Colleagues on behalf of his party, and that matter is being taken very seriously. I have subsequently met the Member to advise of some of the actions I have taken in regard to that.

Mr John Kelly: Further to that point of order, a Cheann Comhairle. Was a search warrant —

Mr Speaker: Order. I fear that the Member has not been listening quite so acutely to what I have said as he normally does. There are matters that I cannot speak about because they have a bearing on proceedings.

Mr Derek Hussey: You have rightly referred to anger in and about the Chamber, and the integrity of the Chamber is in question, as is the case with the calling of a meeting of the Business Committee and of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. There is also the issue of the First Minister seeking a meeting with the Prime Minister. In the interests of good order, can I urge you, Mr Speaker, to suspend the business of the Chamber until those negotiations and meetings have taken place?

Mr Speaker: The question of a meeting that the First Minister, in any of his capacities, may have with the Prime Minister does not have a direct bearing on proceedings here. The Member knows that it is not within the power of the Speaker to simply suspend the proceedings. Standing Orders are clear on when suspensions may take place. It is not simply a matter for the Speaker to suspend proceedings of his own volition. What the Member asks as a point of order is not in order.

Mr Derek Hussey: Further to the point of order, I did say "in the interests of good order". That is within your remit.

Mr Speaker: I trust that the Member is not implying any threat to good order. Such an implication would itself bring down the sanction of the Chair.

Mr Oliver Gibson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I note your careful handling of the situation this afternoon. Would it not be the greatest contribution that you and the Business Committee could make that an immediate motion for the removal of the gangsters of Sinn Féin/ IRA be debated immediately?

Mr Speaker: Order. First, it is not possible to have an immediate debate. That is clear. The Member’s Colleagues have explored that question substantially. Secondly, if there were any question of exclusion, there are clear Standing Orders requirements for an exclusion motion. Those relate to exclusion from ministerial office, not exclusion from the House. I trust that no one will mislead Colleagues or the public whom we serve by suggesting that the legal situation is otherwise. I trust that I have answered the Member’s point as fully as I can.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Mr Speaker, I hope that you agree with me that it is shameful that certain Members of the House would try to turn alleged criminality onto the police, at a time when the police have tried to defend the interests of democracy. Will you confirm that on Friday the DUP sought from your Office and the Business Committee a debate on Friday’s raid of the Sinn Féin offices in the Building and the wider implications? Was that relayed to you while you were on business in Canada? Did any other party contact you at that time to make a similar request? If they did not, does that not make the claims of other parties in the House, saying that there would be dire consequences for the process, sound very hollow indeed?

Mr Speaker: I received a request and I am not prepared to confirm or deny in respect of any other parties, save when they raise the question for themselves. I can confirm that I was apprised of a request for a meeting of the Business Committee. However, when I asked for the specific motion or point upon which the Business Committee were to be recalled, I did not receive it. That is why there was no earlier meeting of the Business Committee, because a specific request on the point, motion or otherwise was not received. What was received was effectively a request to set aside business that had already been agreed and set down on the Order Paper. As Speaker, I was not at liberty to do such a thing; nor, indeed, would the Business Committee have been at proper liberty simply to disregard procedure. However, the Member and his Colleagues met me this morning to make a specific request, which has been acceded to. There will be a meeting at 1.00 pm.

Mr Nigel Dodds: In the light of Friday’s events, both here and elsewhere in the Province, have you instigated any review of security vetting procedures for officials of the Assembly, and if you have not already done that, would you consider it? Should that also be extended to cover staff employed on a temporary basis by parties here? Clearly there are grave implications if the least of the allegations made is proved to be correct.
In the light of the tremendous interest that there is in the country in relation to those issues, it is clearly the desire of some Members that we should not simply proceed in the normal way.
I therefore propose that Standing Orders be suspended, particularly Standing Order 10 and such other Standing Orders as are necessary, to allow forthwith a debate in relation to the issues which have come before us, particularly as it would make no sense to proceed with business as normal.

Mr Speaker: With regard to the Member’s first question, I do not feel at liberty to discuss all that we are doing on the security side. I try to reassure the House that we are doing all that is appropriate, but one must handle things in a proper fashion, and that is what I am trying to do. I trust that Members will, for good reason, feel reassured as to how we are handling things.
I must remind the House of what I said earlier. Simply because one finds reports in newspapers does not mean that they are the truth. There are certainly a number of reports with a bearing on recent events that I know to be completely and factually incorrect — to my certain knowledge. I trust that that in itself is of some help to Colleagues.
Mr Dodds will know that even a proposal to suspend Standing Orders is a motion which must be presented in the Order Paper — and I think that he may have done so in the past, for various reasons, in his ministerial capacity. I hear what the Member says, but the order is that it must be on foot of a motion and, therefore, it is not possible at this stage.

Rev William McCrea: Is it in order that Sinn Féin — which the dogs in the streets know is inextricably linked to a violent terrorist organisation, namely the Provisional IRA — should remain in ministerial office over the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland? The demand of the public is that action be taken now to remove Sinn Féin/IRA, and surely the Assembly has a duty to act.

Mr Speaker: The Member makes assumptions about duty, but there is also order. The Standing Order is quite clear. The Member may table an exclusion motion if he has sufficient support. If he checks the Standing Orders and he has sufficient support, he knows very well the route to my office, because he and his Colleagues take it from time to time. The provision for the presentation, and the requirements for the passage, of any such motion are present in Standing Orders. The Member is aware of it and has experience of doing it. It is all there. It is not a question of duty or anything else. It is there, and if the Member and his Colleagues wish to pick it up and run with it, they know the Standing Orders and the procedures that are there.

Rev William McCrea: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it not a fact that you have received such a motion, signed by Members of the House? In fact, the DUP is just waiting for the other Members, namely the Ulster Unionists, to sign the exclusion motion.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member knows perfectly well that what I have received is not adequate under Standing Orders in terms of the amount of support required. If he can use his good offices and undoubted charm to encourage other Members to back him, so be it, but I cannot do anything further at this stage.

Rev William McCrea: Mr Speaker, which Standing Order states that the number of signatures is not adequate for the exclusion motion to be tabled?

Mr Speaker: The Member will resume his seat. He knows perfectly well which Standing Order it is.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Mr Speaker, perhaps you could confirm to the House whether the correspondence you obtained from the police was as a direct result of a request that you made to them for information regarding the events on Friday. If that has been the case, have you made a similar request to the leadership of IRA/Sinn Féin in the House as to their behaviour in the breach of security on Friday? Is it not odd that members of Sinn Féin are so concerned about proper search warrants when they do not seem to have any difficulty when their crowd break into Castlereagh and other places?

Mr Speaker: I trust that the Member has been as careful as I cautioned. I understand that many Members feel happy to sit in a judicial position, but it is not necessarily one that is backed by law.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Judge, jury and executioner across the way.

Mr Speaker: Order. I had a meeting with the Chief Constable, and I think that Members would have deemed it irresponsible for me not to have sought such a meeting. The Chief Constable was most constructive in the conversations that we had. He then responded to me in writing as an interim to further conversations that we intend to have, and I trust that they will be held soon. No one should jump to conclusions about any of these matters.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you confirm whether you have had similar contact with Sinn Féin about its behaviour and about alleged breaches of security, raised by my Colleagues, on Friday?

Mr Speaker: Order. Is the Member suggesting to me that he regards these as equal matters? I have the greatest of respect for all Members, but, on security matters, I do not put any of them in the same position as the Chief Constable of the police, who has particular responsibilities in these matters. As far as questions of privilege, and breaches of privilege by anyone in the House, are concerned, I have already advised the Member’s Colleagues that I am addressing that matter. That, therefore, is not a new point of order. However, if he really wants me to regard the Chief Constable in the same light, and with the same responsibilities, as others that he has mentioned, I am afraid that he is mistaken — I will not.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order. I will take this further point, and, if it is not a point of order, the Member may have some difficulty getting a further one at another stage. Does he wish to make a point of order?

Mr Sammy Wilson: I wish to pursue the matter further. Have you made any contact with the leadership of IRA/Sinn Féin regarding the breach of security at this place on Friday?

Mr Speaker: Order. I have already advised the Member that I was approached by Sinn Féin and have had discussions with Sinn Féin about the matter.

Mr Sammy Wilson: About the police?

Mr Speaker: I am not prepared to say what I have had discussions about, but the Member should not assume that that is a "No".

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Under Standing Orders 61 and 63, the Keeper of the House is entitled to take action against intruders not only to the Assembly precincts but to the Building. What steps did the Keeper of the House take to prevent the intruders who were invited in by Minister de Brún and Gerry Kelly — who appeared to break every rule in the book — from entering the Building? What investigations followed?

Mr Speaker: Order. I have been generous in my acceptance of points of order. This matter has already been addressed, and there are internal inconsistencies with what the Member raises. People are not intruders if Members have invited them in.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: According to the Standing Order —

Mr Speaker: Order. The way in which visitors enter the Building may be a breach of privilege or order, but the Member’s Colleagues have already clearly raised that, and I have advised on this. I am very satisfied that they raised it properly. The Member may not think that they have done it well enough, but I think that the matter has been addressed fairly fully.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to make it clear that until the House can have a debate, and a time is announced for it, my party will not deal with the regular business of the House.

John Taylor: Since a staff member of Sinn Féin in the Building is now the subject of prosecution, and since Sinn Féin also has an office in the national Parliament of the United Kingdom, would it be a matter of courtesy for you to officially advise the Speaker of the House of Commons of the circumstances that arose here on Friday?

Mr Speaker: I am astonished that the Member thinks it necessary for me to give advice from this place to the Speaker of the sovereign Parliament. However, it would also be unwise for me to make any remarks about a matter that is sub judice.

John Taylor: There is a danger — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Sean Neeson: Will you confirm that the business in the House this afternoon will be as printed on the Order Paper? Will you also confirm that all the Ministers will fulfil their ministerial responsibilities and present themselves to take questions at Question Time?

Mr Speaker: The Member knows me well, but I suspect that he overestimates my capacities in those regards. The House will follow the Order Paper as best it can. However, the idea that I can control anything other than the order of business, such as Members themselves, is what I, in my professional role, would call a wish fantasy. I trust that Members will act with decorum, but I cannot ensure the presence of any particular Member.

Mr Peter Robinson: Will you clarify, or reflect upon, the response that you made to my Colleague Mr Paisley Jnr about your definition of an intruder? Your definition, as recorded in the Official Report, may have implications for the work of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Surely, anyone who enters this Building without having made proper arrangements, whether invited by Members illegally or not, is an intruder and must be so considered.

Mr Speaker: I wish the matter were so simple.

Mr Peter Robinson: It is as simple as your response.

Mr Speaker: I remain with what I said: I wish the matter were so simple. Members should not forget that we are talking about pass-holders.

Mr Norman Boyd: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it the case that, under Standing Orders, the only way of excluding IRA/Sinn Féin from ministerial office is with the support of the SDLP, and that in reality the only way of removing IRA/Sinn Féin from the Government is for all Unionists to resign from the Executive and collapse this charade of government?

Mr Speaker: The Member has described one way of addressing the matter. However, I would like to think about whether it is the only way. There are many creative politicians here and many different ways in which things can be achieved.

Mr Francie Molloy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. One expression of the creative nature of the politicians here was the view that David Trimble would be saved by the storm troopers who were put in here on Friday. Will you confirm that you will ask the head of the storm troopers — the direct descendants of the B-Specials — if their weapons were put through the Assembly’s scanning equipment? Will you treat them as intruders?

Mr Speaker: Order. I listened with care to what the Member said. I would be cautious to confirm very much, given some of the references that he made, save to say that I take seriously the concerns which underlie what he said, and they form part of our exploration of matters. As I said, an initial report will be brought to the Assembly Commission. However, it will be only an initial report because there are legal and other complexities which require further investigation.
Being patient is not a problem for me, but, in all fairness, the Minister of Agriculture has been patiently waiting to make a statement to the House.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I have taken a substantial number of points of order. If this were more important than the rest, it should have been taken as one of the earlier points. It is time for us to move on. If the Member wishes to bring the matter to my attention outside the House, I invite him to do so. We have had three quarters of an hour of points of order, and he has been on his feet on a number of occasions. [Interruption].
Order. I am not prepared to take the point of order at this juncture. The Member has had a number of opportunities to raise a point of order. If this point is more important than the rest, he got the order wrong.

North/South Ministerial Council: Agriculture

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on agriculture held on 27 September 2002 in Downpatrick. I ask Members leaving the Chamber to do so as quietly as they may.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Before I make my statement, I should like to say that I very much regret that the DUP has withdrawn, since the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development will not be present to fulfil his duties to the Assembly, his Committee and the agriculture industry.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
The seventh meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in its agriculture sectoral format was held at the St Patrick Centre, Downpatrick on Friday 27 September 2002. I chaired the meeting and was accompanied by Mr James Leslie, junior Minister in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, who has also agreed the content of this statement. The Irish Government were represented by Mr Joe Walsh TD, Minister for Agriculture and Food, and Mr Éamon Ó Cuív TD, Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.
The recent restructuring of Government Departments in the South meant that the majority of items discussed at the September meeting fell within Minister Walsh’s area of responsibility. Minister Ó Cuív’s Department has specific responsibility for the item relating to cross-border rural development.
The Council considered a paper on co-operation in the field of animal health and noted that it had previously agreed to the establishment of an animal health steering group and some working groups tasked with examining specific issues. In relation to those issues, the Council noted a paper stating the principal policy differences, the possibilities of convergence and the timetable for action to achieve such convergence. The Council endorsed the paper as a further contribution to the development of an all-island animal health strategy and acknowledged that further progress on aligning policies and measures was fundamental to the development of the strategy. The Council noted the indicative timetable for convergence and also agreed that officials should seek to finalise discussions with the authorities in Great Britain before final agreement of the strategy by the North/South Ministerial Council.
The Council also considered a progress report on the work of the steering committee on cross-border rural development. In April 2002 the Council endorsed the principle of an area-based approach to cross-border rural development, and at the September meeting it was agreed that the steering committee should initiate action to invite applications from partnerships for the selection of four or five geographically defined border areas under INTERREG. The Council noted that the steering committee would have to give further consideration to an appropriate response to the recommendations arising out of the cross-border education, training and research study. The Council was pleased to note that the Rural Community Network and Irish Rural Link have been successful in their application to deliver the cross-border community development measure of Peace. The total aid being provided amounts to 970,000 euros. The aim of the measure is to provide support for the development of a cross-border strategy to address the problems of weak community infrastructure and marginalisation in border communities.
The Council then considered a paper on plant health, pesticides, diagnostics and research co-operation and noted the continued level of cross-border activity in that sector since the last meeting and new developments with the pesticides monitoring and registration review. The Council also noted the proposal to organise reciprocal familiarisation visits, workshops, training and ring tests for diagnostic purposes as a means of improving cross-border scientific and technical co-operation in plant health, including forestry.
The Council agreed that Departments, North and South, should explore the establishment of a plant health risk assessment panel and approve the identification of lead figures in each jurisdiction to initiate and develop effective cross-border action.
The Council had an initial discussion of issues relating to EU matters and areas of co-operation within each sector that could be proposed for the future North/South Ministerial Council work programme. Those discussions arose from a commitment reached at the fourth plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, which was held in Armagh on 28 June 2002.
The Council then considered salary increases for chief executive officers of North/South implementation bodies, and, subject to the approval of Finance Ministers, approved salaries and salary range increases for chief executive officers based in Northern Ireland, with effect from 1 April 2002. It was proposed that this year’s annual increase for all chief executive officers based in Northern Ireland should be based on Senior Northern Ireland Civil Service pay increases.
The Council also agreed that its next meeting would take place in the South, in December 2002. The text of a communiqué for issue after the meeting was agreed upon, and a copy has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Mr George Savage: I welcome the Minister’s statement. The Rural Community Network and Irish Rural Link will need the finance that is available. When will applications and schemes be assessed? When will there be real development in those rural areas of high unemployment?

Ms Brid Rodgers: With regard to the Peace II programme, the Rural Community Network, in partnership with Irish Rural Link, was successful in its application to deliver the measure. Those organisations will establish the cross-border network, which is expected to be operational in December 2002 and January 2003. Applications will be accepted then.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: When will the cross-border community development measure of Peace II be operational?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have answered that question in my answer to the previous one, which was about the same issue.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for the progress of the important meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council.
I have particular interest in the convergence and harmonisation of animal health policies, of which there are many, on both sides of the border, so that there is an all-Ireland system. The steering group on animal health was to produce an animal health policy by 31 September. Is that still on course?
What was the pay increase for chief executive officers? What are their salaries now?

Ms Brid Rodgers: It is hoped that the steering group will finalise the all-island animal health strategy by the end of the year. The differences between North and South are outlined in the matrix. There are differences of approach in dealing with brucellosis and tuberculosis. I will take account of the consultation on the review of brucellosis and tuberculosis and of the policy in the South.
Northern Ireland differs in its approach to sheep identification. I am considering bringing forward proposals on that issue later in the year.
In the South, measures are being introduced to mirror the action taken to control Aujeszky’s disease in Northern Ireland.
Salaries for chief executive officers differ from job to job and are a matter for the Department of Finance and Personnel.

Mr David Ford: Further to Mr McHugh’s question, how soon does the Minister expect full co-ordination of brucellosis and TB health measures, North and South, given the major problems that they create for both farming economies?
With regard to the plant health risk assessment panel, has the Minister taken any note of the grave concerns in Northern Ireland about the introduction of genetically modified organisms, given that some testing is ongoing in the South? Will she do anything to ensure that Northern Ireland can maintain its current green image and remain GM-free?

Ms Brid Rodgers: There is no question of introducing GM organisms into Northern Ireland. The Executive have not taken a position on that. I can only give my party’s position, which is very much opposed to the introduction of GM organisms into Northern Ireland. The Executive have not yet discussed the matter, but I do not imagine that there will be much enthusiasm for it.
To answer the Member’s first question, I hope that the final common strategy will be agreed by the end of this year. The working groups have been considering all the areas involved. Did the Member ask for any other details?

Mr David Ford: What is the timetable for action rather than strategy?

Ms Brid Rodgers: My policy review on brucellosis and TB is currently out to consultation. There are points of difference between here and the Republic — the capping of compensation payments, for instance. Those are quite controversial issues. When I get the result of the consultation, I will consider it carefully and discuss it with the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and the Assembly before making a final decision. Given that disease does not recognise the border, I want to work towards having similar, converging policies, North and South. There are implications for both sides if there are different policies.

Mr P J Bradley: In view of the current political climate, would the collapse or suspension of the institutions have implications for the work in hand in the North/South Ministerial Council, especially on the negotiations preceding the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy (CAP)?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I would be extremely concerned if the institutions were to collapse, and the agriculture industry would have particular reason for concern. The Member asked about the mid-term review of the CAP. It is no secret that Northern Ireland and — I was going to say UK, but — English interests have very different priorities. The UK Minister will have different views, and a Minister appointed through direct rule to represent Northern Ireland will, of course, take the UK Minister’s line. To put it mildly, that would not be helpful to us in the run-up to those negotiations, especially considering the dynamic that has been introduced through the North/South Ministerial Council, whose agreed priorities have been endorsed by the Assembly and in the South. Again, those priorities are not similar to those expressed by the UK Minister.
A return to direct rule would rob Northern Ireland of the important opportunity to have its own voice in negotiations and to articulate the priorities for the industry here. That is not a political point; rather it is one that indicates the practical reality that the farming community will face.

Water Quality and Planning

Mr Donovan McClelland: I have received notice from the Minister of the Environment that he wishes to make a statement on water quality and planning.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I am putting the following remarks on the public record for at least two reasons. First, the construction industry, potential householders and other sectors need clarity and certainty. Secondly, this is a matter of genuine and general public interest to elected representatives and their constituents.
Downpatrick provided an early example of an unfolding problem, and Members may recall the debate in the Assembly. At that time we sought, and achieved, a solution to the difficulties experienced in the Downpatrick area. As I did not want that situation to be constantly repeated across Northern Ireland, thus giving rise to continued uncertainty, I implemented the following approach to address the wider issues across Northern Ireland: to analyse the problem, thus providing a context for developing a solution and, in the meantime, holding applications recommended for refusal by the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS); to consider what we should do, how we should do it and to set a clear timetable for achieving an outcome; to provide a mechanism to evaluate and review progress regularly in striving to meet that timescale; and, having agreed the way forward, to inform the House and the public fully and promptly.
Members are well aware that Northern Ireland’s sewerage infrastructure falls well below modern standards. As the environmental regulator, I have worked with Mr Peter Robinson, because the operation of the sewerage system is the responsibility of the Department for Regional Development. The Department for Regional Development also has a clear duty through its Water Service to comply with EU and domestic water-quality standards.
Members are also aware that the Department of the Environment’s Planning Service has been holding — I emphasise not refusing — some applications in some areas as a result of concerns expressed by the Environment and Heritage Service about the environmental compliance and pollution implications of further development pending urgent consideration of the way forward by both my Department and the Department for Regional Development.
I take this opportunity to do two things. First, I would like to explain why it was necessary to hold some applications. Secondly, I would like to explain the agreed way forward. I have already referred to deficiencies in the sewerage infrastructure. It has been recognised that they are not the fault of this devolved Administration; rather they reflect the decades of underinvestment before the matters became a local responsibility. As environmental regulator, I am concerned about those deficiencies. Peter Robinson and the Department for Regional Development, as operators of the system, are also concerned.
The deficiencies exist within an increasingly stringent legal and environmental framework. In particular, the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive introduces increasingly demanding standards for sewage treatment and effluent discharges to our watercourses. Domestic environmental standards are also tougher. The Assembly will recall the Public Accounts Committee report on river pollution that called on my Department, and the Environment and Heritage Service in particular, to take a much more rigorous approach to environmental regulation, not least in respect of discharges from waste water treatment works. The law is now much less tolerant of pollution than it was before, and that trend is continuing.
To illustrate the point, I will use two important indicators that are monitored by the Environment and Heritage Service in its role as environmental regulator. First, compliance of sewage treatment works with EU standards fell from 53% in 2000 to 35% in 2001. Secondly, compliance with domestic standards fell from 81% in 2000 to 57% in 2001. That compares with 95% compliance in England and Wales for at least the past five years.
It is important to note that the situation reflects the increased stringency of the regulatory standards and not an overall deterioration in the system’s performance. This forms the background against which the Environment and Heritage Service and the Planning Service operate.
Furthermore, it is important to understand that my Department has a statutory duty to promote the conservation and cleanliness of Northern Ireland’s water resources and waterways. In that context, and in the light of the significant reduction in Water Service compliance with EU and domestic standards, the Environment and Heritage Service expressed concern about the implications of further development with regard to environmental compliance and pollution risks in 56 locations across Northern Ireland. The concerns identified by the Environment and Heritage Service were sufficiently serious to raise complex and far-reaching legal, environmental, operational and resource issues. Those issues touched on the functions of the Department for Regional Development’s Water Service as well as those of the Department of the Environment’s Environment and Heritage Service and Planning Service.
Initial legal advice emphasised the need for a precautionary approach, taking account of both European and domestic law, and for careful consideration of the issues. The Planning Service therefore decided to hold — again, I emphasise "hold" and not "refuse" — planning applications for developments that the Environment and Heritage Service had recommended for refusal pending detailed examination of the issues.
That examination has proved more complex and has taken longer than we wished. It has, undoubtedly, been a source of real difficulty and concern for the construction industry as well as for actual and potential householders. I have met with representatives of the industry several times, and the Quarry Producers Association, and have apprised them of our deliberations. I have kept the Executive and the Committee for the Environment fully apprised, and I have met several delegations regarding the issue.
Needless to say, the linked issues required the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development, Peter Robinson and myself to work closely together, as well as consideration by the Executive as a whole. The essence of that work has been a location-by-location examination of the compliance problems and the work needed to resolve them together with a comparison of the projects and priorities in the Water Service capital works programme. The aim was to determine whether the necessary improvement work is programmed and over what period. I am grateful to Peter Robinson and his staff for their efforts in undertaking the work.
I am glad that that co-operation has allowed us to develop a pragmatic approach, designed to balance the need for physical development with the need to protect the environment. It is important to emphasise that balance — or compromise, if you like — is at the heart of the issues I am reporting to the Assembly today. The approach that we, as Executive Ministers, have adopted reflects an acknowledgement that an absolute constraint on development in those areas with a significant degree of non-compliance with environmental standards until such time as the deficiencies in the sewerage infrastructure can be corrected would have a crippling effect on physical development across Northern Ireland. Such an approach, despite the high level of environmental protection it would have afforded, would have carried a high price in respect of constraints in economic growth and social progress.
I shall now turn to the agreed way forward and address four aspects of the issue. First, there are the environmental considerations. The joint Environment and Heritage Service/Water Service examination of the 56 locations identified 14 areas where the environmental impact is low. Remedial works in the current Water Service capital works programme should be completed within three years at five of those locations, and within five years at a further seven locations. No remedial works are planned for the remaining two areas. However, because of the low environmental impact, the Environment and Heritage Service will not object to the granting of planning permission. The Planning Service will complete the processing of the affected applications and will issue decisions. Where the decision is to approve the application, development may normally begin immediately.
In the remaining 42 locations, where the environmental impact is medium or high, remedial works are scheduled for completion within three years at 23 locations and within five years at a further 19 locations. In those cases, the Environment and Heritage Service will alert the Planning Service to the environmental issues, but will not object to the granting of planning permission. Moreover, in those cases the Planning Service will complete the processing of affected applications, issue decisions and, if approved, work may normally begin immediately. A complete list of the 56 locations, together with an environmental comment, will be available at the following web site: www.ehsni.gov.uk.
I emphasise that, in the context of development control, the Environment and Heritage Service provides advice; it does not direct the Planning Service. The Planning Service will, as it must, determine each planning application on its merits, taking into account all relevant factors, including the Environment and Heritage Service’s advice.
The result of that approach is that those planning applications that have been held on a precautionary basis pending an examination of the issues, and future planning applications in all 56 locations, will be processed to decision. Although I appreciate that that will be welcome news to the construction industry and more generally, I also acknowledge that it means that developments will continue to connect to the public sewer in areas where the current inadequacy of the sewage collection and treatment systems is having a high or medium environmental impact, and will continue to do so for some years, pending completion of the Water Service’s capital works programme.
As environmental regulator, that situation does not rest comfortably with me, nor does it, I am sure, with Members. The Executive have adopted that pragmatic approach to protect people’s jobs and livelihoods and to ensure that the objectives for economic growth and social progress outlined in the Programme for Government are not jeopardised.
In the first instance, our approach is based on the Water Service’s commitment to deliver the capital works programme as currently planned, subject to the completion of statutory processes. In considering future funding, the Executive have not agreed any increase in the capital budget for the Department for Regional Development’s Water Service. At my request, and to inform the Executive’s discussion, the Minister for Regional Development, Mr Peter Robinson, provided a paper outlining the additional resources that the Water Service would need to provide interim solutions at some locations in advance of the main schemes, to settle the advance plans’ start dates at other locations, and to undertake by traditional procurement some schemes currently comprising a public-private partnership/private finance initiative package. The Executive noted the paper and agreed to consider the way ahead in Water Service investment as part of the infrastructure strategy to be developed between now and the final Budget in December.
To assist their consideration, the Executive agreed to commission from Peter Robinson further details of the costs that he provided and his proposals for meeting them, including his plans for re-prioritisation and restructuring.
My officials in the Environment and Heritage Service will monitor progress carefully in the capital works programme and the continuing environmental impact of development, especially in the high-and medium-impact locations. They will work closely and at senior level with Water Service officials. My aim is to avoid any serious exacerbation of pollution in those areas. I therefore caution that, in the longer term, it may not be sustainable to continue to connect developments to non-compliant sewerage systems in which remedial works remain some way off. However, I will keep the situation under continuous review, considering the balance between environmental protection and facilitating development, and will do so in an open and transparent way, fully involving the Chamber and the industry.
Peter Robinson and I have agreed that developers should also introduce proposals to meet infrastructure deficiencies, and we will encourage them to do so. It is to be hoped that my statement provides certainty and clarity for the construction industry and actual, or potential, householders who have been affected by the problem. I am mindful that continuing to hold up planning applications could have drastic implications for house supply and house prices and could potentially destabilise the housing market, which is a vital element of the Northern Ireland economy.
Therefore, we have identified the source, level and nature of the environmental and legal risks, established a clear timetable to deal with funding issues, which is a vital element of the approach that I have outlined today, established clear monitoring and review mechanisms by way of a close and clear relationship between the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development, and sought to encourage opportunities for the construction industry to assist in the solution of those problems. I commend the statement to the Assembly.

Mrs Joan Carson: I welcome the Minister’s statement, which is much needed. The Minister has made the best of an extremely bad job in trying to make some sense of the issue.
We must comply with the stringent — the Minister’s word — European legal environmental framework, which is enshrined in the EU Urban Waste Water Directive. Our almost-obsolete sewerage systems hold effluent that goes into the river system; that concerns me. Eutrophication of our rivers and lakes is a problem, and in the Lough Erne system we have not only our own system, but the problem of pollution coming from the Republic of Ireland. I ask the Minister to consider that, because it concerns me greatly. Water is abstracted from the Lough Erne system and goes into domestic water, so I hope that the Minister will consider all those standards.
I welcome the Minister’s report, and I look forward to its being implemented as soon as possible.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I thank the Member for saying that I am making the best of a bad job. However, it is the usual saying: you cannot control the hand of cards that you are dealt; it is how you play that hand.
Mrs Carson mentioned eutrophication and pollution from the Republic of Ireland. Under the EU Urban Waste Water Directive, we are considering river basins and how water should be standardised. Part of that process involves cross-border work, because at least one of the basins is transnational between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. All those issues will be dealt with in due course. There is no quick fix to the problem of river pollution.

Mr Alban Maginness: I thank the Minister for his statement, which everybody welcomes. The statement and the proposed action aim to create certainty and clarity. However, I am not certain that that will have been achieved as a result of the statement, because it is so dependent on getting a clear timetable for the Department for Regional Development to deal with the funding issues. Clarity and certainty are also dependent on the creation of monitoring and review mechanisms.
Will the Minister assure the Assembly that that timetable for funding can be reached fairly quickly to provide clarity and certainty for the public?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I thank Mr Alban Maginness for saying that everybody welcomes my statement. I am beginning to worry whether people from all sides welcome it, but I take the point.
As regards certainty and clarity, we all remember the debate about development in Downpatrick. I did some interviews then, and the word "widespread" was used. The question was asked about where the next development would take place. I said that we should put a hold on development and ascertain the depth of the planning problem. I am clarifying where the 56 problems are, their depth from an environmental perspective, and when there is likely to be a capital works programme to rectify those difficulties.
Mr Maginness said that he was unsure about the clarity of the matter. There are two financial elements. There is the capital works programme to which the Department for Regional Development agreed. It was on that basis alone that I gave the chronological listing of up to three years or up to five years. Having said that, the reinvestment and reform initiative and various other programmes are necessary, and the Executive have commissioned the Minister for Regional Development to introduce further information. I cannot answer that.
I have identified the problem from a planning point of view, brought it to the public domain and made everyone aware of the implications. I have no doubt that Members often hear about constituents’ housing concerns on this. I have given the issue a space for planning development to take place, and I look to the Department for Regional Development to bring forward that additional capital programme and to discuss and agree its funding in the Executive. That will bring the certainty and the clarity that are required. We all agree that sewerage infrastructure is behind that of the rest of the United Kingdom, never mind the rest of Europe.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement; it is better late than never. Was he aware that sewerage infrastructure was well below standard and that the Department of the Environment was required to comply with the EC Directive in January 2001? If he was aware of that, why were planning restrictions introduced a year and a half later in May 2002?
Will the Minister give clarification on the Culmore sewage treatment works, which was given planning permission in 2001? Even if that proposal proceeds now, it will take three years to complete. The Water Service’s representative stated on television some weeks ago that the money was available to proceed with the Culmore sewage treatment works. However, the Minister, Mr Robinson, contradicted that some weeks later in the Assembly. Will the Minister say when the Culmore sewage treatment works proposal will proceed and what possible restrictions developers are likely to encounter as a result of the delay? Has the Minister discussed with his counterpart in the Department for Regional Development the alternative that developers will have to resort to, in the form of modern cesspits and packaged treatment plants, which will have a far more serious environmental impact than the current discharges to water, worrying though they may be.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: The Member said that my statement was "better late than never". I stress that this is an extremely complex issue because of the geographical breadth and depth of the environmental risk that the Department is taking on these sewage treatment works. I maintain that it was worth stepping back to identify the magnitude of the problem. Unless or until we quantify the problem, we will not be able to identify the proper solution.
The Member said that the sewerage infrastructure is "well below standard" and that it was supposed to comply with the European standard in January 2001. She is correct. That was the date when the European Directive raised the bar and 200 extra sewage treatment works were brought into the reckoning. That led to a lowering compliance level, and only 35% of our sewage treatment works are now in compliance. However, consider the chronology: only when the figures were brought together in March 2002 did the proportion of non-compliance become apparent. Statistics for a specific year apply only after the year has run, at which time they are analysed. It is similar with balance sheets and public accounts; the balance sheet for the year ending 2001 would not be presented until, perhaps, March, April, May or June of the following year. There is a time lapse.
In March 2002, when the magnitude of non-compliance became known, which paralleled the debate in the Assembly about Downpatrick, action kicked in to identify the problem and find a solution and a way to monitor the situation, and we had to be clear about what we were doing.
I do not plan to get into a discussion about an individual sewage treatment works, and I hope the Member understands that in relation to her third point on Culmore sewage treatment works. That is why I made sure that the information is available on the Department’s web site. People can search for Culmore waste water treatment plant. It will be categorised as having a high, medium or low environmental impact. The web site will define simply each of those categories. If anyone wishes to ask me, I will explain them. The web site states when the capital works programme is meant to be completed, because only when the programme is complete will the risk of pollution be eliminated. There is clear information on the Culmore waste water treatment plant on the web site, because it was one of the 56 hot spots.
I hasten to add that there is a small complication. It has been said that there are infrastructure problems, and there are. Effluent may be entering a river, but, depending on the speed of the flow and the volume of the water, the dilution of the sewage may take place very quickly. Therefore, there may not be pollution.
As I said, the information is on the web site, but I will help the Member. I am told, and I thank those who told me, that the plant at Culmore will take up to three years to meet the standards. However, there is no significant impact on Lough Foyle at present. The problem is the sewerage system.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I have granted some licence with regard to the length of questions and answers because of the relatively small number of Members who have indicated that they wish to speak.

Mr Derek Hussey: I welcome the co-operation at ministerial level on this issue. We all realise that that was absolutely essential. The Minister spoke about having to work with the hand that he was dealt. The Minister’s flush was facing a royal flush from European Directives.
The Minister referred to compliance with EU standards. What are the compliance levels in other European countries? I share Mr Alban Maginness’s concerns about the timetable of infrastructure improvement that will be needed. I trust that, to achieve the timetable, we will not consider short-term fixes that would cause problems beyond the five-year period. Does the statement take immediate effect?
The Minister also stated that it is important to understand that his Department has a statutory duty to promote the conservation and cleanliness of Northern Ireland’s water resources and waterways. We all understand that and support his Department’s efforts to achieve its aims.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will forgive me for speaking slightly at a tangent. Will the Minister make every effort to consult with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the agriculture industry with regard to future legislation on water cleanliness, particularly in relation to the disposal and spreading of slurry? Will he ensure that a practical approach is adopted that will not further disadvantage our agriculture sector? Furthermore, will he ensure that any decisions are based on sound scientific facts and figures, and that conclusions will also follow that pattern?
I understand, as I am sure the Minister does, that, with regard to pollution, there are concerns that nitrate levels are being studied, when there is a suggestion that phosphate levels should be studied.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I am conscious, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you mentioned the length of questions and answers. This matter has been exercising people’s minds and, therefore, I wish to exorcise it from their minds.
Mr Hussey mentioned the statistics for other European countries. I do not have those to hand, but they will be supplied to Mr Hussey when I can obtain them. I share his concern, and I have placed that fact on the record. We want to get the matter right because of those concerns.
I cannot read the writing for the next answer, so I will move on.
Regarding the statement, it is having immediate effect.
Mr Hussey mentioned a third point. It is rare for me to be on my feet without being asked a question about agriculture. I share the Member’s concern. I wish to, and do, work co-operatively with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the farming industry. He mentioned scientific fact. Policy should be based on evidence, not emotion. That applies to many issues, not just this one. I am conscious that he mentioned nitrates, phosphates and the causes of eutrophication. I am also conscious that John Gilliland, the president of the Ulster Farmers’ Union, has made this point clearly to officials and to me. I will ensure that the decisions to be taken on slurry, sewage and the causes of the problems will be based on scientific evidence.

Mr John Dallat: I also thank the Minister for his statement and compliment him on the high priority that he attaches to environmental issues. I want to introduce the issue of flags — not the controversial kind, but blue flags, which are critical to our tourism strategy. Given the restrictions on upgrading our sewerage system, will the Minister assure us that we can retain our blue flag beaches in the interests of tourism?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I am conscious of the debate about a certain sewage treatment works discharging effluent into a certain part of the coastline in Mr Dallat’s constituency. Thus, I can understand the angle from which he comes. I wish to see the blue flag dimension maintained and enhanced here. We want to see our beaches protected and preserved, and that is all that I need to say at this juncture.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I also welcome the Minister’s statement. In recognising the high price of constraints on economic growth and social progress, the Minister has agreed that the risk of pollution is not a comfortable one. Will he assure the House that any planning application will be adhered to, that the environmental risks will be considered and that no short cuts will be taken by the construction industry?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I am sorry; I missed a key part. Mr Murphy asked me to ensure what?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Perhaps you could clarify, Mr Murphy.

Mr Mick Murphy: Will he ensure that no short cuts are taken by the construction industry?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I missed the words "no short cuts". I also thank Mr Murphy for his commendation. I am getting worried about this approval.
Mr Murphy pointed out an environmental aspect that we all recognise exists. I will ensure that no short cuts are taken. I have made it very clear that one of the four key elements is to monitor and review. It is no good identifying a problem or trying to find a solution unless there is monitoring to ensure that that solution is answering the problem, a normal and natural business practice.
We have also established a close relationship between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, akin to what happens in Britain where the environmental regulator and the Department work together. I am, or I represent, the environmental regulator, and I assure Mr Murphy that no short cuts will be tolerated in this context. We all recognise the difficulties, and we are all trying to move forward, mindful of the poor level of infrastructure we have for sewage works in Northern Ireland.

Mr George Savage: In the Ministers press release this morning, he stated that this is a problem that he and his Department inherited due to underinvestment in former years. I note that he said that many planning applications are on hold. Is that because the sewage treatment works are not up to scratch and cannot cope? When will all the plants in rural areas be able to cope and be brought up to an acceptable standard?
Farmers in the Lough Neagh area have had difficulty getting onto their land due to the wet weather during the past year. Will steps be taken to lower the water level?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: The sewage treatment works are performing as they have been. The proportion of non-compliance has been increased by the EU Directive raising the standard and the fact that some sewage treatment works were brought into the reckoning during our assessment. Some may not be up to standard. Sewage discharge can lead to pollution, depending on whether it dilutes quickly in the river.
However, there is a problem, and we have tried to identify it and to find a way forward. We have tried to make the problem and the solution known in the public domain. That will require careful monitoring. It is also an integral part of the process. The situation will be monitored, and those sewage treatment works that are not up to standard will be brought up to standard fairly quickly — the number of years is estimated. We wait to see what further capital provision comes through the various strategic investment initiatives that are planned over the coming weeks with the Department for Regional Development. I have given the lead from a planning point of view, and I look to the Department for Regional Development to play its part.
The water level in Lough Neagh is a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. I am conscious of the other aspect of pollution referred to by Mr Hussey.

Mrs Annie Courtney: The construction industry, planners and developers have been waiting for this news for a long time. I also welcome the Minister’s response to Mr Hussey that it would take effect immediately. That will be good news for those who may be in the process of laying off workers, and it is good news for the construction industry as a whole.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I thank Mrs Courtney for her comments.

Employment Bill: Consideration Stage

Mr Donovan McClelland: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. There are five groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn, as indicated in my grouping list. I remind Members intending to speak that, during the debates on the five groups of amendments, they should address all the amendments in each particular group on which they wish to comment. Once the initial debate on each group is completed, any subsequent amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the question on each will be put without further debate. The questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, I shall proceed.
Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Donovan McClelland: We now come to the first group of amendments for debate — amendment No 1, with which it will be convenient to debate amendment No 2.
Clause 4 (Statutory adoption pay)
Question proposed,

Ms Carmel Hanna: I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 21, line 32, after "Act" insert
"(except section 167 ZP(1) to (3))".
The following amendment stood on the Marshalled List:
No 2: In clause 8, page 24, line 16, leave out paragraph (a) and insert —
"(a) after sub-paragraph (f) (issues relating to entitlement to statutory sick pay or statutory maternity pay) there shall be inserted —
‘(fa) subject to and in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph by the Department for Employment and Learning with the concurrence of the Board, to decide any issue arising as to, or in connection with, entitlement to statutory paternity pay or statutory adoption pay;’". — [Ms Hanna.]

Ms Carmel Hanna: Amendments No 1 and No 2 cover clause 4 and clause 8 respectively. I have tabled the amendments in order to clarify the Bill’s powers to make Regulations. Clause 4 inserts provisions on statutory adoption pay into the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992. It provides my Department with the power to make Regulations on statutory adoption pay. However, statutory adoption pay may have effects on social security benefits such as incapacity benefit. Therefore, the Department for Social Development also needs powers to make Regulations in that area. Amendment No 1 confers that necessary power on the Department for Social Development.
Clause 8 inserts provisions about decisions and appeals on statutory paternity and adoption pay into the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. The Department for Social Development normally makes Regulations under that Order. However, it is right that the power to make Regulations about entitlement to statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay should be vested in my Department, which has the policy responsibility for those matters. Amendment No 2 confers that power on my Department. The amendments ensure that the Regulation-making powers in question are conferred on the appropriate Department. The amendments are purely technical in nature, and I seek the Assembly’s approval of them.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Both amendments are of a technical nature. They are necessary to provide enabling powers to the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department for Social Development. I urge the House to support them.
Amendment No 1 agreed to.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 5 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 (Decisions and appeals)
Amendment No 2 made
"(a) after sub-paragraph (f) (issues relating to entitlement to statutory sick pay or statutory maternity pay) there shall be inserted —
‘(fa) subject to and in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph by the Department for Employment and Learning with the concurrence of the Board, to decide any issue arising as to, or in connection with, entitlement to statutory paternity pay or statutory adoption pay;’". — [Ms Hanna.]
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 9 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 (Flexible working)
Question proposed,

Mr Donovan McClelland: Members should note that amendments No 3, No 4, No 5, No 6 and No 7 are interdependent. If amendment No 3 is not made, I shall not call the remaining amendments.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I beg to move amendment No 3: In page 28, line 14, after "child" insert "or disabled dependant".
The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:
No 4: In page 28, line 24, after "child" insert "or disabled dependant". — [Ms McWilliams.]
No 5: In page 28, line 27, after "Article" insert
"which is made in respect of a child". — [Ms McWilliams.]
No 6: In page 28, line 29, leave out the words from "or" to the end. — [Ms McWilliams.]
No 7: In page 28, line 39, leave out from beginning to "child" in the second place it occurs and insert
"In this Article any reference to a disabled dependant is to a dependant". — [Ms McWilliams.]

Prof Monica McWilliams: Amendments No 4, No 5, No 6 and No 7 are consequential to amendment No 3. The lead amendment arises from our concern about parents with disabled children, and the eligibility of those disabled dependants beyond the age of 18 years.
The Employment Bill does not make it clear if the right to flexible working will be extended to parents with disabled children who are 18 years or older. There are 7,000 children under the age of 18 with disabilities in Northern Ireland. The statistics for those over 18 years were queried, but there may be approximately 14,000 adults with some kind of disability between the ages of 18 and 44. However, how many of their parents are working and would benefit from access to flexible working? In practice, some but not all might benefit from that. As the Bill stands, the parents of disabled children who depend on them beyond the age of 18 are not entitled to the provisions of the Bill.
Parents of disabled dependants have great needs, and extensive research has been carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which has done admirable work over the years, on the role of carers. However, the research to which I refer is a study of parents with disabled children who are now adults. The study is called ‘Juggling Work and Care: the experiences of working carers of older adults’. As part of the study, the foundation interviewed 40 families who have tried to combine employment with caring for disabled adult children. They point out the difficulties that such parents have in sustaining secure but flexible work and how, as a consequence, many such families are trapped into poverty. Some had to give up work and were then dependent on benefits, but they do not want to be on benefits; they prefer to be out working to avoid feeling isolated and vulnerable, but they cannot reconcile the two. Now, for the first time, we have a Bill that is concerned with parental rights on flexible working, but it denies those rights to one of the most needy groups of all — the parents of disabled children who are over 18 years of age.
There was a widespread assumption about the mothers of disabled dependants being available for work at any time, if they were in work. As a consequence, that group was often afraid of being labelled "in need" and therefore needy. They did not want that to continue. They wanted to be able to speak about their special needs as parents of disabled dependants. When they were out of work they suffered excessive personal and financial hardship. If this Government can do anything about linking up pieces of legislation and preventing poverty — particularly the poverty of those with disabled children or disabled dependants — let them do it in the Employment Bill.
The foundation’s study concluded that if the Government were to give employees a right to ask for flexible working arrangements, it would greatly help the parents of disabled dependants, since employees would have a legal right to have that request considered seriously by employers.
The Committee for Employment and Learning asked an official if there was any forthcoming legislation to take on board the role of carers. I am talking about the parents of disabled dependants, not other carers, although I hope that some day the Assembly will have legislation to deal with carers’ responsibilities and rights in work. The official said that as far as he was aware no such legislation was being considered, so this amendment must be incorporated into the Employment Bill. If it is not, it will be lost.
The Committee for Employment and Learning took evidence from Ms McSorley from the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, who said:
"The Commission certainly feels that the right should be made available in relation to disabled children while they remain dependent."
Likewise, Prof Barry Fitzpatrick of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland said:
"The reconciliation of working and family life makes for better workers. If people are not given this sort of leave it will affect how they work. A sensible leave system covering the purposes for which people want time off is better than them taking leave regardless of the rules."
I have no doubt that that was the purpose of the legislation in the first place, and, therefore, it addresses the needs of parents whose children are under the age of six and parents who have disabled children up to the age of 18. Those disabled children will remain, to all intents and purposes, children, as in the word "dependants" of their parents, beyond the age of 18. Ann Hope, from the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, rightly said:
"The key issue should be the needs of the child and the parents and not an artificial age barrier."
Why is age 18 the cut-off point for disabled dependants? A departmental official responded to the Committee’s inquiry. He stated:
"I do not recall whether the Department used statistics or whether it simply came to a conclusion following the consultation and suggestions made in that about the age of disabled and non-disabled children whose parents should be entitled to flexible working hours."
Consensus emerged that the appropriate age was six for non-disabled children and 18 for disabled children. The next words are extremely important. He said:
"The decision was probably not made in a scientific way."
Given all the scientific and empirical evidence about the needs of parents who have disabled children over the age of 18 but with the same needs as children under the age of six, I urge the Minister to become more scientific and extend them that right in this legislation. What will happen to parents whose children have reached the age of 18 by the time that the Bill is passed? Given that it is going to be prospective, they may have exactly the same needs as they previously had. We must address those needs.
The Bill implicitly states that if the contractual rights were there before they reached the age of 18, they may still have those rights after the age of 18. What happens to those who can be regarded, to all intents and purposes, as dependants — who are entitled to disability living allowance, which is the eligibility criteria — but who will be denied that right?
Given that the evidence was rather unscientific, it may lead to cases of indirect discrimination. Equality legislation under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 proves that people with or without dependants are not discriminated against in that category. The Equality Commission tells us that there is currently much confusion about the role of carers, particularly women who have caring responsibilities. If we do not include this amendment, we will add to that confusion. For example, if I were working and had a child who was under 18, and someone were working with me whose child had just turned 18 and had become incapacitated as the result of an unfortunate sporting accident, those two parents would have entirely different rights, yet that person’s needs might be greater than mine.
With that mind, I am concerned that the Bill is unclear about what will happen to the group who are under the age of 18, after they become 18. However, it is equally important that Members should address the needs of those in poverty, particularly given that it is a priority in the Programme for Government, allow them the opportunity to work, give them flexible working rights and the same rights as those who have dependants under the age of 18.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I thank Prof McWilliams for raising this issue, which was discussed at length in several Committee meetings. It is sufficiently important to merit being raised again today.
The Bill, as it stands, states that the right of parents to request flexible working should be limited to cases where the child is aged under six or, if the child is disabled, 18. In a desire to be as helpful as possible to parents of disabled children, the Committee considered the possibility of removing the age limit of 18. However, the majority of Committee members determined against that course of action. The Committee identified two main problems, which seem to be attached also to the amendments.
First, the use of the term "disabled dependant" in amendment No 4 will widen the measure to include all dependants, not simply offspring. That is an important distinction that will widen the provision, no matter what the original intention of the amendment was. If that amendment is accepted, it will significantly change the nature of the Bill.
Secondly, there is a concern about the compliance and budgetary cost of the measure. When taking evidence, the Committee detected a certain lack of precision on the part of the Department about how many parents of disabled children would benefit from the provisions as they stand. That, in turn, makes it difficult to estimate how a wider casting of the net might increase eligibility and cost. That said, on page 74 of the Committee’s report there are figures provided by Assembly Library and Research Services which include the number of people claiming disability living allowance plus attendance allowance, and which show that up to 211,000 people could be affected if we went for a form of words such as "disabled dependant".
If the Assembly is to go down that road, it will constitute a major policy change. It can be argued that that change should be considered, whatever its merits. It does have some merit, but such a change should be considered in its own right, rather than being introduced through amendments to the Bill.
Although I am bound to restate the view of the majority of Committee members on the subject, I appreciate that the amendments raise important policy issues. The position of carers other than parents must be considered, and I urge the Minister to do so, because it is part of the general theme of tackling the so-called work/life balance.
The Bill is concerned with granting the right to request flexible working. In the case of parents of disabled children, that right exists until the child reaches the age of 18. However, as Ms McWilliams pointed out, if flexible working is granted, there is a question about whether that right continues after the child reaches the age of 18. As I understand it, it would continue. However, given that that is a sufficiently important issue, it would be useful if the Minister would clarify the position of such cases.
In other words, once flexible working has been granted to a parent, does that continue once the disabled child has passed the age of 18? In previous discussions, a majority of the Committee came down against this group of amendments, although I concede that there was another view.
However, I should certainly like to hear the Minister’s views this afternoon regarding some of the issues raised by Ms McWilliams, particularly on two points. First, what does the Department propose regarding equitable treatment of carers in the round — other than simply those who care for children? Secondly, what happens once the right to flexible working has been granted but the child is no longer under the age limit specified in the Bill?

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the amendments. The issue was discussed at length on several occasions, as the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning has said, and we took a vote on it. Although the Chairperson kept talking about the majority of the Committee, that majority was of only one. Committee members were, by and large, very sympathetic to the view that a person who has a disabled child under 18 years of age and who is entitled to flexible working arrangements should be able to continue those hours after the child has turned 18.
We all know families with children who are over the age of 18 but who are still very much dependent on their parents. Those families have many problems to deal with. People come to me about matters as simple as lowered kerbs in the town centre so that they can get about adequately in a wheelchair. They come to me about the benefits system and the disabled living allowance for their children. They come to me about transport and educational arrangements. Often an entire family is disabled by the circumstances in which it finds itself with a disabled child.
If we are to do something good to benefit the wider community, we must be more imaginative and creative in bringing about legislation that will make a real difference to people’s lives. Extending the flexible working arrangements to families who have children over the age of 18 who are still dependent would make a huge difference.
The Committee has discussed the issue at length. I agree with much of what Monica McWilliams said on the issue and support her amendments. It is critically important that we try, in the limited time that we have left in this Assembly — and it might be even more limited today than it was last week — to pass legislation that will improve people’s lives. These amendments, if carried, will do that, and I support them. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I understand that, in proposing these amendments, the Member intends to give the parents of disabled children the statutory right to continue with flexible working arrangements when their child passes the age of 18. Secondly, she would like the right to flexible working for the parents of disabled children who are over 18 years of age when the parents request flexible working arrangements.
I fully support the Member’s sentiments. Indeed, I have worked for many years with the parents of disabled children. I share their concerns. After all, just because a disabled child turns 18 years of age does not mean that it is no longer dependent on its parents. Parents of disabled children still require the right to flexible working arrangements when their children become adults.
The Employment Bill confers on parents of disabled children the right to request flexible working arrangements, not just until children reach six years of age, but throughout the childhood of a disabled person. Although the request for flexible working hours must be made before a child with a disability reaches the age of 18, the flexible working arrangement does not end at that point.
I want to clarify what would happen in practice with regard to flexible working arrangements under the provisions of the Bill. When the parents of a child under the age of six, or of a disabled child under the age of 18, request flexible working arrangements, the employer and employee will enter into dialogue to explore how the request can be accommodated without there being a detrimental effect on the employer’s business. I am confident that the request can be facilitated in most cases and that a mutually suitable arrangement will be reflected in the permanent employment contract between employer and employee.
The permanent contract would continue indefinitely until an event occurs, such as the employee leaving, the employer ceasing to operate, a new contract being established or a contract being varied. A contract can only be varied, or a new contract entered into, after due consultation involving both parties. The contract would continue indefinitely. Therefore, a situation would arise in which employees who are parents of disabled persons over the age of 18 would continue with that flexible working arrangement.
I cannot agree with Ms McWilliams’s amendment. It would confer the right to request flexible working arrangements beyond the targeted beneficiaries of the Bill. I sincerely appreciate the fact that parents of disabled children over the age of 18 when the application is made for flexible working arrangements will miss out: that goes beyond the targeted beneficiaries of the Bill. However, the Department will review the legislation and if it is working successfully for employer and employee, the Department may extend its scope. I hope that the Member will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I am pleased that it was clarified that much debate took place in the Committee and that the majority was only one. Had the Committee considered the issue at greater length, certain members might have been won over by some of the arguments. It is good to have the Minister’s clarification that the contractual arrangement could be varied for those who have the right and are beyond the age of 18.
However, I was taken by the Minister’s own words when she said that a disabled person’s dependency does not necessarily end at the age of 18. I am heartened that the Minister, having worked with the parents of disabled adults, understands their needs. I believe, therefore, that it is possible for the Assembly to work on the amendment. I am not referring to the wider interpretation that covers all carers of dependants. I agree that that may require further legislation. I am referring to the working parents of a disabled dependent child or adult who is beyond the age of 18. The Assembly must legislate for that group. Therefore, the amendment must stand. If it is passed, the Assembly can agree upon the legal wording that will accommodate that group.
Given the current political situation, it would not serve us well to leave it out of the legislation and to have to tell interested groups that we may return to it one day. The time is now, and it is a good time to include the amendment in the legislation.
Question put, 
The Assembly divided:
Ayes
Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ervine, David Ford, Michelle Gildernew, Billy Hutchinson, John Kelly, Kieran McCarthy, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Jane Morrice, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Dara O’Hagan, Sue Ramsey.
Noes
Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Joan Carson, Robert Coulter, Annie Courtney, Michael Coyle, John Dallat, Ivan Davis, Mark Durkan, Reg Empey, Seán Farren, Tommy Gallagher, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, Carmel Hanna, Joe Hendron, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, James Leslie, Patricia Lewsley, David McClarty, Alasdair McDonnell, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Eddie McGrady, Eugene McMenamin, Éamonn ONeill, Ken Robinson, Bríd Rodgers, George Savage, David Trimble.
Question accordingly negatived.

Mr Donovan McClelland: As amendment No 3 has fallen, consequential amendments No 4, No 5, No 6 and No 7 shall not be called.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 14 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2
Question proposed,

Ms Carmel Hanna: I beg to move amendment No 9: In page 37, line 32, at end insert —
"The Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order1992 (NI 5)
In Article 84A(1) (claims and proceedings to which Agency arbitration scheme applies)—
(a) after ‘tribunal’ insert ‘under, or’;
(b) after ‘contravention of’ insert—
‘(za) Article 112G(1) or 112H(1)(b) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (flexible working);’ and
(c) in sub-paragraph (a) for ‘the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996’ substitute ‘that Order’."
The following amendment stood on the Marshalled List:
No 11: in page 39, line 7, at end insert —
"The Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (NI 18)
. In Article 20(1) (claims and proceedings to which provisions as to conciliation apply)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (c)—
(i) at the beginning insert ‘under, or’;
(ii) after head (vii) insert—
‘(viia) Article 112G(1) or 112H(1)(b) (flexible working);’ and
(b) in sub-paragraph (e) at the beginning insert ‘under, or’." — [Ms Hanna.]

Ms Carmel Hanna: Amendments No 9 and No 11 have the effect of enabling the Labour Relations Agency both to conciliate in disputes about flexible working and to extend its binding arbitration scheme to such disputes. A key principle behind the flexible working provisions is that of promoting dialogue. It is important to encourage employers and employees to find solutions that suit both. Conciliation and arbitration can help to achieve that. It is in everyone’s interests to ensure that disputes be settled to the satisfaction of the parties without recourse to the tribunal system. The flexible working provisions lend themselves well to conciliation and arbitration, which are well suited to resolving straightforward cases. Essentially, the issues to be resolved are factual rather than legal. The Labour Relations Agency has much expertise in the areas of conciliation and arbitration. The resource should be made available when disputes arise over flexible working. To that end, I have tabled the two technical amendments.

Dr Esmond Birnie: The Committee supports the principle of this group of amendments, whereby individuals can choose to use the Labour Relations Agency instead of industrial tribunals. I therefore urge support for them.
Amendment No 9 agreed to.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I beg to move amendment No 10: In page 39, line 1, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert
"in sub-paragraph (e) after ‘134’ insert ‘, 135C’."
This amendment will have the effect of exempting members of the armed forces from the Bill’s flexible working provisions.
As drafted, those provisions apply to all employees, and that, by and large, is how it should be. However, if national interest requires it, members of the armed forces are placed in the unusual position of being deployed at little or no notice. Those unique working conditions make it impractical to apply flexible working arrangements to service personnel.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence requested that I accept their proposed amendments, and for the reasons given, I decided to agree. The Ministry of Defence intends to explore how it can, nevertheless, comply with the spirit of the legislation, subject to overriding operational requirements.

Dr Esmond Birnie: The Committee considered the proposed amendment and sought clarification from the Minister, whereby it was pointed out that the exemption would not apply to emergency services such as the Ambulance Service or the Fire Service. The Committee supports the amendment in principle.
Amendment No 10 agreed to.
Amendment No 11 made: 
"The Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (NI 18)
. In Article 20(1) (claims and proceedings to which provisions as to conciliation apply)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (c)—
(i) at the beginning insert ‘under, or’;
(ii) after head (vii) insert—
‘(viia) Article 112G(1) or 112H(1)(b) (flexible working);’ and
(b) in sub-paragraph (e) at the beginning insert ‘under, or’." — [Ms Hanna.]

Ms Carmel Hanna: I beg to move amendment No 12: In page 39, line 7, at end insert —
"The Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 (NI 9)
In Article 24 (1) (power to confer rights on individuals) at the end add—
‘(g) the Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 2002.’."
Amendment No 12 will enable my Department to extend the rights conferred by the Employment Bill to additional classes of workers. The Committee for Employment and Learning has expressed concern that the Bill’s provisions do not cover the relatively small group of workers not classed as employees. The right that the Bill confers applies to employees for several practical reasons, which have been accepted by the Committee.
I am sympathetic to the Committee’s interest in the rights and benefits afforded to workers. My Department recently issued two related consultation documents on employment status and working conditions for temporary and agency workers. I look forward to hearing views that may arise from the public consultations on individual employment rights, including those introduced by the Bill. The Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 gives the Department the power to extend the rights contained in some existing employment legislation. Some of the rights introduced by the Employment Bill will be covered by that power because they are inserted in existing legislation. Other rights are, however, only contained in the Bill, and to ensure that they can be extended, I tabled amendment No 12.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Amendment No 12 is especially significant in the context of the two consultation exercises that the Minister mentioned. As she rightly said, the Committee urges that this opportunity be used to consider whether "workers" could in some cases be given rights equal to those that apply to people who are defined as "employees". The Committee supports the amendment in principle.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
Amendment No 12 agreed to.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Employment Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

First Minister and Deputy First Minister
Reinvestment and Reform Initiative

1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) what provisions have been made, in the draft Budget, for the Office’s plans regarding the reform and reinvestment initiative.
(AQO250/02)


Our office is taking the lead in developing legislation on behalf of the Executive to establish the strategic investment board and to allow for the regeneration, through the reinvestment and reform initiative, of former security and military sites. The draft Budget does not contain specific provision for the strategic investment board or for the costs associated with the transfer of sites because we were unable to quantify those meaningfully when proposals for the draft Budget were drawn up. The situation will be reviewed when the final Budget is prepared and when work on the initiative is taken into account in the next few moths.
The provision in the draft Budget for infrastructure for 2004-05 and 2005-06, which was announced on 24 September, is insufficient to tackle our infrastructure deficit. More is needed for our capital programmes, but more will come through the reinvestment and reform initiative, which we hope will be announced later in the autumn.


Does the First Minister agree that the reinvestment and reform initiative provides an important financial opportunity to address the water and sewerage infrastructure deficits which exist throughout Northern Ireland and which are restricting development in my constituency? Does the Minister agree that the reinvestment and reform initiative could play an important role in maintaining existing jobs and, perhaps, in creating new ones?


The Member is correct; the object of the exercise is to address the infrastructure deficit and to provide resources for it. We already have a significant increase in resources, thanks to the immediate measures that we negotiated with the Treasury, and we expect legislation to be forthcoming from Westminster that will give us a substantial borrowing power that will greatly add to our available options. Of course, the Administration and the Assembly must consider carefully how those options are exercised.


Will the First Minister confirm that all the infrastructure work that was referred to in the last question could be carried out by the existing Departments, without setting up an expensive strategic investment board or expensive development corporations, as proposed in the Strategic Planning Bill? Will he tell the House whether setting up new quangos is consistent with the promises that he made to sweep away quangos as a result of administrative reform? Does he not find it grotesque that, while talking about tumbling the institutions, he is in the process of putting through a Bill that is designed only to give him more opportunities to promote his cronies?


The Member is tempting fate by using the word "grotesque", and I shall not pursue that further. There is substantial underinvestment in infrastructure, and a substantial job must be done. The initiative is not merely about reinvestment; it is about reinvestment and reform. The intention is to improve how we do things, and the Administration has not been as effective as we would have liked in pursuing public-private partnerships and exploring the options there. We are centralising expertise so that the 10 Departments do not each have to reinvent the wheel. That is why we want to attract skills and disciplines from parts of the private sector to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the system. It will be cost-effective, but working through the existing Departments — the old silo-type system — has clearly been inadequate and is unlikely to be adequate for our current situation. I am sorry that the Member is such an old stick-in-the-mud.


I wish to advise the House that question 5, standing in the name of Mr Fee, has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer.

Equality Commission

2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to give an update on the implementation of the Equality Commission’s legal services’ audit report recommendations; and to make a statement.
(AQO244/02)


In January 2002, the Department queried the Equality Commission’s increasing expenditure on legal fees. The Department asked the Commission to carry out an internal audit of its financial systems and procedures relating to the legal services budget. We agreed the terms of reference for the audit, which covered three distinct areas: the reasons for the increasing expenditure on legal fees; a review of the processes for commissioning and paying legal fees and budgetary financial management and approval systems; and a review of systems and processes in the legal division as a whole, with reference to the integration of services across all the legislative grounds.
The auditor’s final report on the first two areas was presented to the Equality Commission on 5 July, and the Department asked the Commission to draw up an implementation plan for the recommendations. That has been accomplished and is being monitored by the Department. Significant progress has been made on implementing those recommendations.
The third part of the review, which will include benchmarking the legal services directorate against other organisations carrying out similar functions, is due to be completed by the end of November.


I thank the Deputy First Minister for his answer to that important question. Does he agree that recent newspaper reports on this, which I understand are generally inaccurate, must be dealt with, so that staff morale is not further undermined?


I recognise that concerns have arisen over newspaper reports. Staff morale is a significant factor, and the Department hopes to ensure that any damage is compensated for by progress. As well as that, those who want the Equality Commission to be available to give support must have their confidence in and concerns about the Commission addressed.


Is OFMDFM concerned that some people have had legal assistance withdrawn at short notice, and was it aware that that would happen? Does OFMDFM agree that the Equality Commission is well funded, and can it say what support it provides?


I agree that the Equality Commission is well funded. It gets £6·7 million each year while the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission gets only £750,000 and the South’s equality authority gets 5 million euros — about half the funding for twice the number of people. The Commission may spend up to £1·8 million on legal assistance this financial year. That is well over budget. Last year it is estimated that the UK Disability Rights Commission spent £220,000.
OFMDFM was not aware that the Equality Commission had started to withdraw assistance at short notice, and as it was concerned about that, it met with the Equality Commission. OFMDFM is monitoring the situation to see what additional resources should be made available to it this year to ensure that important aspects of its work are carried forward, while dealing with increased expenditure on legal fees. OFMDFM wants to ensure that assistance is not withdrawn at short notice and that the large increase in expenditure and legal aid do not prevent the Commission from carrying out other important aspects of its work. OFMDFM has also agreed measures to assist the Commission to manage its legal aid strategy. The Equality Commission is not a legal aid body and should not be expected to act as such. At a personal level, I would like to see legal aid made available for such cases.


Will the Minister agree that, in the past, the Equality Commission has been too willing to back every case brought to it and that that has been the cause of its financial problems? That policy has also discredited the Equality Commission in the eyes of the public.


Unlawful discrimination is unacceptable. The Equality Commission is a strategic enforcement body that enforces existing anti-discrimination law and uses its resources to ensure the development of legal issues. Support to complainants is one of the ways in which the Equality Commission can fulfil its functions to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity.
Last year, in recognition of the increasing proportion of its budget that was being taken up by legal fees, and of the need to bring a more strategic focus and coherence to the consideration of requests for assistance, the Equality Commission undertook a review of its legal assistance strategy. The review identified the need for a more strategic use of its legal budget. Again, I make the point that the Equality Commission is not responsible for providing legal aid and cannot be expected to act as if it is. Legal aid is a reserved matter, and it is the Lord Chancellor’s policy not to provide legal aid to tribunal cases. I have already given my view on that matter.

Executive Meeting

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline the date of the next Executive meeting and what will be on the agenda.
(AQO251/02)


There is a schedule, but unless there are some dramatic developments, I have great difficulty in seeing how the Executive, as presently constituted, can meet again.


Hear, hear.


Is it conceivable that, had security matters rested with the Executive, infiltration to the extent admitted by the Secretary of State would have happened under the First Minister’s watch?


He helped it.


I will get back to my point and leave Flipper to get on with it.
Furthermore, would the question of concealing stolen documents to that scale of for more than three months have arisen?


The Member raises hypothetical points, and some of those matters may be unknowable. However, there is no doubt that serious questions must be asked about how the Northern Ireland Office conducted its business and the level of regulation that it imposed. I hope that, at an appropriate time, in the not-too-distant future, the Secretary of State will institute a proper inquiry into what happened on his watch and put the findings in the public domain.


Will the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister ask the Executive, if and when they meet, to recall the Minister for Regional Development’s triumphant statement to the Assembly on 20 May this year? The Minister announced approval for development at Harland & Wolff’s harbour estate of land that was no longer required for shipbuilding, permitting the financing of a new business plan. Will he establish whether the proposal of 200 redundancies is part of that business plan, or whether it is an attempt to free up even more Harland & Wolff land for disgraceful speculative profit at the expense of those unfortunate workers?


There was a brief discussion of those matters at the Executive’s last meeting. Sir Reg Empey gave the Executive an account of the development of the situation. As I recall — and I hope that I recall accurately — the protective notices with regard to redundancy were necessitated by the state of the construction of vessels at Harland & Wolff; the second ship is about to be completed. He also told us about discussions on the development of the harbour estate. Plans are being prepared, and these matters will be brought before the Executive again, when appropriate. With regard to the redevelopment of the estate, an effort is being made to include more light industry and commercial development as a means to replace the jobs that are threatened and the jobs that have already been lost.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the First Minister speak and act with caution — as a lawyer, he ought to know to do so — so as not to further prejudice legal proceedings against an individual who works in this Assembly?


The phrase about beams and motes comes to mind, with regard to the behaviour, not only of the Member who asked that question, but of his party. If he considers the way in which his party and his associates have behaved over the course of recent weeks and months, he might have thought twice about asking such a question.

Third-World Link

4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what progress has been made towards establishing a linkage with a Third-World country; and to make a statement.
(AQO247/02)


No official or formal links have yet been established between the Executive and a developing country. However, we recognise that the people of Northern Ireland have a long and well-renowned tradition of supportive links with developing countries through the valuable work of Concern, Trocaire, Christian Aid and other charities. I had intended to visit Malawi in late August to see the excellent work being carried out by Concern and other relief organisations. However, due to my mother’s terminal illness, I was unable to go.
In the Assembly we have already established an all-party group on international development. We need to consider how the work of that group and perhaps the activities of something such as the commonwealth local government good practice scheme, which is funded by the UK Government, can assist in developing stronger and more valuable links with developing countries, as recently reflected in the Member’s comments during the Programme for Government debate.


I applaud the Minister’s interest in Third-World issues. Is he aware that Coleraine Borough Council has recently established a linkage with the city council in Zomba in Malawi, the country that he referred to? Will he encourage other councils to consider similar procedures? Assuming that normality breaks out in the House, would he avail of an early opportunity to visit Malawi so that he can reinforce the Assembly’s concern for the people of Africa and the Third World generally?


The links being developed between Coleraine Borough Council and Malawi through the twinning process are worthy of our fullest support. I would certainly encourage other councils to follow that sort of initiative. I am aware that in the past similar initiatives were undertaken by Derry City Council in relation to Kebele 37 in Addis Ababa. More recently, there have been some links between Derry and El Salvador. Sharing experience and expertise between local authorities and developing countries can lead to mutually beneficial relationships through which we can all learn. In circumstances where many of us like to tell each other that the eyes of the world are upon us — when the truth is the eyes of the world more generally roll up to heaven every time we seem to put ourselves into another crisis — it is right that that we take a wider view of the world and see our responsibilities and our role in that world context.


Is the Deputy First Minister content that his partner in Government has already got Third-World links with a terrorist guerrilla organisation in Colombia? Does he not believe that it sets a bad example to the Third World that we have gunmen established in our Government? During the last 72 hours, has the First Minister expressed to the Deputy First Minister a willingness to remove his Ministers, who prop up Sinn Féin in this Government?


The Member is referring to matters that are the subject of legal proceedings in Colombia. We must let those events take their course there.
In circumstances where there are all sorts of stories about all sorts of conversations and records of conversations being leaked and briefed, I will let the Member receive whatever leak he has or may get of any conversation that I have had with the First Minister through the DUP’s normal course, rather than taking the opportunity to reveal those conversations here.


In view of the fact that we now have a Health Service that has the longest waiting lists in Europe, a sewerage infrastructure that forbids the development of property and a water system that is currently inviting fines from the EU, does the Deputy First Minister agree that we have much in common with Third-World countries and much to learn from their experiences?


We face significant challenges in relation to infrastructure and the public service estate. We have undertaken the reinvestment and reform initiative precisely because we face those significant challenges due to the backlog of underinvestment during direct rule. We treat those problems seriously.
As to likening those challenges to some of the challenges that the Third World faces, I would say — as I would in relation to any developing countries — that the best context in which they can face those challenges, and manage those public expenditure and public service issues, is by having truly democratic arrangements available and in operation.

Strategic Investment Body

6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to give an update on the proposals for the creation of the strategic investment body.
(AQO230/02)


Following the announcement of the reinvestment and reform initiative in May, we established a project board, on which all the parties in the Executive are represented, to advise us on the way forward on the development of the strategic investment board. During the summer the project board considered the detailed arrangements for the strategic investment board and how it should function.
At the Executive’s meeting on 23 July, it was agreed that work should begin immediately to prepare the necessary legislation to establish the strategic investment board. The Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Bill was introduced on 30 September and will have its Second Stage tomorrow. We hope to complete the Bill’s passage through the Assembly and for it to receive Royal Assent by March 2003. There is confidence for you.
In the coming weeks the project board will undertake more detailed work to define how the board will carry out its functions and to identify the types of skills and expertise required to enable the board to operate successfully. It will also address other key issues, such as corporate governance and accountability.


I thank the Minister for his confidence. I hope that we will get it all done by the end of the week. I hope that we will have that situation. Will the Minister explain the role of the investment body in the likely public-private partnership (PPP) or private finance initiative (PFI) contracts?


The board will be there at a broad level to serve the Executive’s strategic investment approach and centralise the expertise needed to manage the increased levels of capital investment that we are hoping to achieve using the reinvestment and reform initiative. It is hoped that by so doing we will reduce the amount of money that ends up being spent on consultants in our capital undertakings from one contract and project to another.
In providing that advice to the Executive, and in assisting the various Departments in their undertakings, the strategic investment board will be helping to form and advise on Executive views in relation to the use of PPPs where they are deemed to be appropriate as one part of that overall strategic investment portfolio. They are only one part of that, and it is to be a part that adds to the net investment that we are able to achieve, beyond what would be available to us under conventional procurement.


Given that we are having a review of public administration in an attempt to create a more efficient Government, why are the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister introducing a Bill that will create a strategic investment board at a cost of £3 million a year plus set-up costs, up to five development corporations costing between £750,000 and £900,000 a year, and a plethora of new civil servants to be added to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister? Are they not satisfied with having more staff in their office than Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair have, and do they now also want to create an office with more staff than George Bush has?


The strategic investment board will be there to serve the investment programme of the Executive at large and to ensure that we will be able to improve and increase the capital expenditure that we are undertaking. We have to do that in dramatic ways.
Members will recall that they often criticise cases of underspend and delays involving capital projects. The idea of a strategic investment body is to cut through many of those problems by having expertise centralised and available in Government to support the work of the different Departments and the Executive, and also to reduce the undue reliance on outside consultants. Members often criticise the constant reliance of Departments on outside consultants and want us to do more in-house in a programmed way. That is exactly what the strategic investment body is about.
Consistency is a bit much to ask for, but Members may recall that some time ago all parties represented on the Committee for Finance and Personnel supported a report calling for a new central driver for capital expenditure. The type of case set out in the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s very good report into public-private partnerships and private finance initiatives is exactly the one that we are answering with our proposals for this body.

Sure Start (Shankill Road)

7. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the Deputy First Minister’s visit to the Sure Start project, Shankill Road, Belfast.
(AQO261/02)


The Deputy First Minister visited the Shankill Sure Start project at the Alessie Centre on Belfast’s Shankill Road on 17 September. That project operates from three early year family centres — the Alessie centre, the Hanna centre and the Martin centre, which are located in the greater Shankill area. Those centres provide high-quality settings for a range of activities covering play development, health and well-being, and parenting and education. The centres also host a range of drop-in facilities, parent and toddler groups, art and craft sections and one-to-one support services.
The Deputy First Minister was given a presentation on the work of the Shankill Sure Start project. He met with parents and users of the service and saw at first hand the impressive range of facilities, activities and services being delivered to children and families. Giving our children the best possible education, and encouraging people to learn and develop throughout their lives, has a fundamental place in the Programme for Government.
We recognise the longer-term benefits associated with early years education, and the Executive are providing additional support through the Sure Start programme, targeting children under four and their families in areas of need. Initiatives such as the Sure Start project on the Shankill Road help to promote a positive image of the area and demonstrate what can be achieved through communities and statutory agencies working together in partnership.


Does the First Minister recognise the immense value of such visits, particularly to the staff and the children? Will he consider making a comparable visit to a disadvantaged community in a Nationalist area of Belfast?


I take both of the Member’s points. It is one of the great pleasures for the Deputy First Minister and me, and, indeed, other Ministers, that we can go and visit people delivering services at the sharp end and see what is happening. It is good for us, it is good for them, and it is good for the service. It is one of the pleasures of this business and helps to compensate for other aspects that are not always such a pleasure.
In relation to the Member’s specific proposal, there is a certain parallel that if the Deputy First Minister goes to the Shankill, people say that I should go somewhere else. I shall look at that proposal sympathetically.

Devolution and Financial Allocations to Health

8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline the effect of devolution on the overall allocation of financial resources to health.
(AQO274/02)


From the outset, the Executive and the Minister for Finance and Personnel have identified health as one of our main priorities and continue to treat it as such. Since devolution, the Executive have agreed substantial additional resources year-on-year for health and personal social services. During the period 2000-01 to 2003-04, the health budget will have increased by £1·1 billion to over £3 billion, representing growth approaching 60% over the period, and an average growth of 12·8% over that period.
The draft budget announced on 24 September offers £300 million more for health than would be provided through the simple application of the Barnett formula based on changes in English health expenditures. The draft Budget proposals further provide year-on-year increases of 4% and 7·7% in 2004-05 and 2005-06. Health funding for those two years will be further increased by allocations from Executive programme funds and the reinvestment and reform initiative.


Has there has been any assessment of the impact of this money on the National Health Service?
Has it visibly reduced waiting lists? I separate waiting lists for a first appointment from bottlenecks for surgery. Have the bottlenecks or secondary waiting lists for surgery been cleared? If not, why not?


The number of people awaiting treatment is a huge concern, and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has confirmed that there will be an expansion in hospital capacity over the next one to two years. The reinvestment and reform initiative has already financed additional capacity that will amount to 100 beds; it is intended to provide additional elective surgery and there are also plans to improve cardiac and cardiology surgery.
There must also be increased investment in community and intermediate care to help to avoid, where possible, hospital admission, to provide for earlier discharge, and to deal with the sort of bottlenecks to which the Member refers.


That brings to an end the time for questions to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.


On a point of order, Mr Speaker.


I do not normally take points of order during Question Time.


Mr Speaker, will you tell the House if the business for tomorrow has been changed? Will the Business Committee tell Members what it is going to do with the motion?


Order. The Member knows that I do not take points of order during questions to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, but I have already indicated through the usual channels that I will take a question at the end of Question Time. I assume that Dr Paisley’s question is one that may well be asked, but I will take it at the end of Question Time.

Regional Development
Public Transport

1. asked the Minister for Regional Development what immediate proposals he has to increase the number of people using public transport.
(AQO263/02)


Mr Speaker, I commend the Business Committee for the decision that you will announce later.


Is the Minister indicating that the point of order might not actually be a question of acquiring information from the Speaker?


You got your chance and you blew it, Mr Speaker. The consultation proposal, ‘A New Start for Public Transport in Northern Ireland’, which I issued on 17 September, would see the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and its Translink bus and rail subsidiaries amalgamated into a new, dynamic, publicly owned operating company, Transport Northern Ireland. It would also establish an independent public transport regulatory body. Significantly, I am also proposing the progressive injection of private sector finance and expertise into the public transport market insofar as it makes sound commercial sense and is acceptable to the wider community. I am convinced that these proposals would lead to improved public transport provision.
I also propose to issue shortly a consultation paper on extensions to the concessionary fare scheme. If the Assembly is prepared to allocate the resources to enable me to introduce such extensions, I am confident that they will increase public transport usage as well as benefiting less-well-off members of society.
As for capital investment, Translink has 23 new trains on order, has completed work on the Bangor line relay, and will commence work on the Belfast to Whitehead relay this year. Translink is also continuing to upgrade its ageing bus fleet. With the assistance of 50% grant aid from the Department for Regional Development, Translink is expected to spend £5·4 million this year and £11·4 million next year buying about 130 new low-floor buses. These developments should make rail and bus travel more attractive.
Looking further ahead, the 10-year regional transportation strategy includes many measures to encourage greater use of public transport such as refurbishment of stations, improved passenger information systems, more park-and-ride facilities, more quality bus corridors, more town bus services and a rapid transit system for Belfast. However, the outcome for public transport will ultimately be determined in the budgetary process, and I trust that I can call for Mr Byrne’s support in this regard.


Does the Minister agree that the number of journeys travelled on public transport declined last year by 2%, and that, therefore, a proactive approach must be taken by Northern Ireland Railways, Ulsterbus and Citybus to make public transport more attractive? Does he accept that the Department for Regional Development has a public responsibility to ensure the increasing use of public transport, including rural areas beyond the Belfast metropolitan area?


In spite of the statistics showing significantly increased use of public transport by senior citizens as a result of the free fares scheme, unfortunately there has been a 2% downturn in the number of passenger journeys on public transport. That is a disturbing trend, and it encouraged me to introduce the consultation document ‘A New Start for Public Transport in Northern Ireland’.
Evidence elsewhere in the world shows that where private sector finance and expertise has been introduced into public transport, it has reversed that decline. It has also shown that where public transport is the responsibility of the public sector, the figures decline. That is one factor that we can use to turn the figures around and ensure greater usage.
The Member will know, coming from west Tyrone and also from his background on the Committee for Regional Development, that unless we can raise the standards of the product that we offer to the public, we will not encourage more members of the public to use public transport — hence the injection of Assembly funds into railways and new buses. That kind of good service with regular, dependable, comfortable buses and trains is more likely to encourage people to use public transport than anything else.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Pedestrian Crossings

2. asked the Minister for Regional Development what formula is used to assess the need for pedestrian crossings.
(AQO241/02)


Roads Service receives many requests for the provision of controlled pedestrian crossings, whether pelican or zebra. Requests are assessed using a formula based on national guidelines to ensure a consistent and equitable approach. Consideration is given to sites if
P x V2 > 0·5 x 108
where P is the number of pedestrians crossing the road per hour, and V is the number of vehicles per hour.
The purpose of the formula is to assess the degree of conflict between pedestrians wishing to cross a road and the number of vehicles using it. The formula acts as an initial sift. If the threshold is exceeded, the site is considered in more detail, and other factors are taken into account when making the decision. Those factors include vehicle speed, road geometry, accident history and proximity to shops, schools, community centres, hospitals, and so on.
This is an important matter and, therefore, I have asked the Roads Service officials to review the formula and the other factors taken into account to ensure that pedestrian crossings are provided where they will be of most benefit. In undertaking the review, my officials will consult the Committee for Regional Development.


I was going to take down the formula, but I got lost. I will get it in Hansard tomorrow.
The Minister will be aware of the demands from elderly people and parents of young children for crossings to ensure safe passage across busy main streets. In the circumstances, can the Minister promote a reduced formula, which would provide crossings and, thus, reduce the risk of injury or fatality?


I have asked my officials to report to me after the review. The existing formula — complex though it is — can be tweaked to allow more crossings. It simply involves changing the factor 0·5 in the formula. Nonetheless, there are requirements if we are to be able to fund additional pedestrian crossings. That is another factor that depends on budgetary issues.


What about saving a life?


Sometimes it does not save lives. That depends on the circumstances in the area. The more pedestrian crossings there are, the less regard cars pay to them, and especially to zebra crossings. Many factors must be taken into account. I am happy to allow my officials to speak to the Member, if he wants to submit views to the review. The Department will consult with the Committee for Regional Development to hear its views on the formula and any changes to it.


Will the Minister confirm that he intends to change the criteria along the lines that he discussed with elected representatives and community groups at a meeting in Ards and bring them into line with the needs of the people of Northern Ireland? When does he envisage consultation starting and finishing, so that the communities of Ballywalter, Greyabbey, Kircubbin, Millisle, Ballygowan and Comber can benefit from it?


The review is under way. I asked officials to carry it out, so, naturally, I assume that they have begun it. It would be unhelpful for me to make any assumptions about its outcome before I have heard what the Committee for Regional Development has to say or what the review establishes.
During the meeting in Ards, I was made aware of several factors, which can be just as important in judging the dangers as the numbers of pedestrians or vehicles. The Department wants to see if the formula can reflect more accurately the danger to people crossing a road, as opposed to the number of pedestrians or vehicles on it.


The Minister has answered my query in part. To take the issue of traffic calming beyond pedestrian crossings, I understand that he is looking objectively at the figures and formulae that seem to cause Mr McCarthy so much concern. I urge him to ensure that the review takes a more subjective approach to traffic-calming measures, because it can be difficult for rural communities to meet the indicative figures that the formulas require.


Leaving aside pedestrian crossings, traffic-calming measures are determined by a scoring system, which is based on several factors. I am concerned about moving away from objective criteria. If a Minister determines his own subjective criteria, people will question his decisions, and he will have no defence unless he operates according to objective criteria. For that reason I would far prefer to use objective criteria that adequately respond to the dangers that exist in an area rather than subjectively decide, according to the mood of the moment, the most appropriate point to have pedestrian crossings or traffic-calming measures.

New Railway Station (Lisburn)

3. asked the Minister for Regional Development to give the proposed timescale for the construction of the new railway station at Lisburn.
(AQO270/02)


Translink has plans for a new bus station at Lisburn in its corporate plan for 2002-03 to 2004-05, and it has already commissioned an economic appraisal on its construction, which is due to be completed by the end of the year. If the option to construct a new bus station is accepted by the board of the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and by my Department, the next step will be to put the proposal out to tender. The project can commence when that process is completed, and it is hoped that work will begin before the end of this financial year.


Will there be adequate provision for disabled access to the new station? Currently, people in a wheelchair and parents with prams have to cross the lines to reach the other side of Lisburn’s railway station.


I am happy to confirm that, when I last spoke to Translink about disabled access, it made it very clear that it considered that a priority, not merely for stations which it is constructing but for rolling stock. When we have more details of the proposal, I shall be happy to sit down with the Member and the group with which she is associated to examine the proposal and see if she considers it as adequate as Translink no doubt would.


Can the Minister confirm that there are problems with the site proposed by Translink and that meetings have taken place between it and the local council? Are we set on the site which Translink currently wants, or is there a possibility of identifying other sites which may be closer to the railway station and more conducive to traffic flows in Lisburn city centre?


I am not aware of any problem with the site. I know that Lisburn City Council would prefer it to be somewhere else. However, the site identified by Translink is one to which it has legal access, and which is, therefore, its obvious choice. It is an operational matter that the council will no doubt wish to take up with Translink directly. However, a station in the middle of Lisburn can be a help to the city centre and should not be considered a nuisance by anyone.

Storm Drainage Impact Assessment

4. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he has taken steps with his Colleague, the Minister of the Environment, to have a storm drainage impact stage inserted into the planning process for new housing development.
(AQO268/02)


The development planning process is a matter for the Department of the Environment. I am advised that, as part of that process, the Department of the Environment consults with the Rivers Agency of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development about potential sites for housing and other developments. The Rivers Agency assesses the potential for flooding in the area and whether preventative measures regarding improvements to infrastructure would be required if the site were zoned for development.
There is also consultation with the Water Service, the Roads Service and, where necessary, the Rivers Agency, on planning applications for specific housing developments to ensure that they have adequate facilities for the discharge of storm water and that it will not create or exacerbate flooding problems in the area. The Water Service advises the Planning Service on the availability of water and sewerage services and any difficulties envisaged relating to the capacity of the existing public sewerage infrastructure and the proposed timing of new or improved infrastructure to absorb new development.
I am also advised that some planning applications for housing developments require the submission of an environmental statement under the Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999. Such environmental statements must take account of any significant environmental effects likely from the proposed development and include a description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and, if possible, offset any significant adverse effect on the environment.
Those arrangements ensure that the potential impact of storm-water discharges arising from proposed housing or other developments is properly considered at the stage of the development plan or development control in the existing planning process.


I thank the Minister for his very brief answer. What other significant steps does he plan to take to improve the storm-drainage requirements in the vicinity of new housing and commercial developments — and, indeed, those already in existence for at least the past 10 years — with specific reference to the prevention of flooding incidents such as those which have occurred or are likely to occur in parts of Newtownabbey and Carrickfergus?


The instances to which the Member refers resulted from significantly higher rainfall than had been experienced for a considerable time. The Assembly will always have a judgement to make regarding the level at which storm drainage facilities should be available.
If the Assembly wants to raise standards, it will have to cough up and give the Department the funding with which to do that. However, the existing planning mechanism gives the Planning Service, the Water Service and the Rivers Agency sufficient ability to consider the storm drainage implications of any planning application. The planning process does not require a new stage. It already includes consideration of that element of planning.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Can the Minister give details of his views on the provision of physical measures, such as mini-roundabouts, which are aimed at reducing the speed of visitors going into, and leaving, housing developments?


I can confirm that the speed of traffic will have no impact on storm drainage.


Mr Attwood is not in his place, so I call Mr Sean Neeson.

Flood Damage Compensation

6. asked the Minister for Regional Development, pursuant to AQO40/02, why his Department has refused to compensate people in East Antrim whose properties were damaged by the severe floods in June 2002.
(AQO254/02)


Entitlement to compensation from the Department is not automatic. For a claim to be successful, it must be shown that the Department failed to carry out its statutory duty or was negligent in some other way. Every claim is, therefore, thoroughly investigated. If no evidence of negligence by the Department is found, the claim is turned down.
Following the serious flooding that occurred on the evening of Friday 21 June 2002, the Department received 346 claims for compensation. However, the Department’s investigation revealed that the flooding was caused by the exceptional thunderstorms and heavy downpour that occurred that night. Those extreme weather conditions were localised. Flooding in the worst-affected areas — parts of Newtownabbey and Carrickfergus — was exacerbated by water that ran off higher ground. Therefore, in the absence of any other significant factors, the Department believes that it has a defence in law against the claims. In those circumstances, they must be turned down.
As with all claims, the Department’s decision can be challenged through the independent legal process. Claims like those, where the value is under £2,000, fall within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court. However, before any claimants consider that step, I believe that it would be helpful if I had the benefit of an independent opinion from senior counsel on the correctness or otherwise of the Department’s position. I have, therefore, asked my officials to arrange that, and the independent opinion is expected soon. A copy of senior counsel’s opinion will be lodged in the Assembly Library.


Many of my constituents received letters from the Department for Regional Development stating that the flooding was an act of God. However, many of the areas that were worst affected by the flooding in June 2002 have been affected regularly — places such as Chichester Square and the lower Woodburn Road. Taylors Avenue in Carrickfergus was flooded and devastated for the third time in a year. Flooding regularly occurs on the Shore Road at Whiteabbey. Many of the residents who are affected by that simply cannot afford house insurance. Many of them have great difficulty getting house insurance because of the regularity of the flooding. Is it not time that the Minister, his Department and the Rivers Agency accepted their responsibility towards my constituents in East Antrim?


The rights of the Member’s constituents are no different to those of other Members’ constituents elsewhere in the Province. The same criteria must apply to all. If the Member is suggesting that the Department should fork out money irrespective of the circumstances or whether there was any negligence on its part, that would be absurd. The Assembly simply could not afford to do that. Therefore, negligence on the part of the Department must be clearly shown before any compensation is paid.
I am happy to consider circumstances where there is a case for negligence. However, I honestly believe that I will not have to consider such a case, because the Department’s compensation agency attentively considers any details that suggest that the Department would be unable to sustain a refusal of a claim in court. We are, therefore, keen to ensure that a payment is made where there is a case. With so many cases involved, rather than simply follow the basis of the Department’s initial consideration, I determined that I would have the case considered by independent senior counsel to examine the Department’s legal position.
I have also asked the Department to instruct senior counsel to provide a clear guideline on the circumstances in which it is right and legally required for the Department to make compensation payments. I propose to put a copy of that guideline in the Assembly Library. It will be useful for Members to recognise circumstances that, according to the law as it stands, will give entitlement to compensation and those that are unlikely to. It does not remove anybody’s right to take legal action, but it will give some indication of the circumstances in which a case is likely to be successful.
I can well understand, for I have seen it too many times in my own constituency, the anguish suffered as a result of flooding. However, every flood is not the result of negligence by the Department for Regional Development or the Water Service. We must recognise that if the Assembly were simply to pay every claimant who submitted an application, it would have a very considerable bill to pay, and money would have to be taken from other heads of expenditure.


Will the Minister acknowledge that, in refusing all compensation claims, his Department appears to be telling my constituents that it is not at fault and that its agencies never contribute to flooding? Could blocked drains and culverts have contributed to flooding? Will he acknowledge that, where the Roads Service has had to carry out remedial work to repair faulty culverts, that agency’s blocked structures will have contributed to the flooding of some of my constituents’ properties?


If blocked drains are the result of negligence by the Department, the Member’s constituents will have a valid claim. However, if, for instance, the Water Service staff clear blockage in a drain on a Thursday, it is blocked on a Friday and flooding occurs, nobody could say that the Department was negligent. Staff cannot stand for 24 hours of every day at every drain throughout the country. That would not be negligence in those circumstances. Therefore, it is necessary to show that the Department has been negligent in how it has dealt with drains and other matters of its responsibility.

Belfast to Bangor Road

7. asked the Minister for Regional Development to make a statement on the current situation regarding the Belfast to Bangor road (A2).
(AQO252/02)


The A2 Belfast to Bangor road is one of the arterial routes into Belfast. It has a two-way traffic flow of almost 40,000 vehicles a day and is of high strategic importance. Safety along the route is of particular concern, and in recent years the Roads Service has implemented several measures directed at improving road safety.
This summer, the Roads Service carried out two important schemes specifically directed at improving the safety and structural condition of the road. One scheme involved resurfacing the section of the road between Whinney Hill and Ballygrainey Road and included a junction improvement at Whinney Hill, localised widening at Cultra Avenue and central hatching between Whinney Hill and Ballygrainey Road. The other scheme involved amendments to the layout and provision of traffic signals at the junction of the A2 Rathgael Road/Old Belfast Road, which has the worst history of accidents on the A2. In addition, work to replace a safety barrier at a tight bend near Seahill continues.
The benefits arising from those improvements are already apparent to all users of the road. I assure the Member that the Roads Service will continue to monitor the road with a view to introducing, where appropriate and practical, further measures to address any safety problems that can be remedied by engineering.


I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. I congratulate the Roads Service on the improvements to that busy road, especially at Rathgael and Seahill. However, I ask the Minister to ask his Department to take note of the dangers of entering and exiting side roads to the expanding residential development along that road.


We are happy to monitor that road regularly and to look at any increase in the number of cars using it, the velocity of traffic or any change in drivers’ behaviour — those are among the Roads Service’s normal duties. Often the first reaction of Members, other elected representatives and others to a road accident is to blame the road. I must put on record that staggering statistics are available that show that in all but 2% of road accidents the fault lies not with the road but with the driver.

Pumping Station (Holywood)

8. asked the Minister for Regional Development in relation to correspondence received by his Department concerning a sewage pumping station in The Coaches, Croft Road, Holywood, to outline measures he has taken, and proposes to take, to address the issues raised.
(AQO245/02)


The Water Service will adopt sewerage infrastructure constructed by private developers provided the infrastructure meets the specific requirements set out by Water Service under article 17 of the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1973. The sewage pumping station at The Coaches, Croft Road, Holywood was constructed by Hagan Homes, which developed The Coaches’ housing site. The Water Service was advised that the pumping station has not been adopted due to legal difficulties that relate to the transfer of the land on which the pumping station is located. The Water Service has been in contact with Hagan Homes and its legal advisers on many occasions about the issue, but, regrettably, despite those approaches, it has not yet been possible to bring the matter to a conclusion.

The Environment

Question No 2, which stands in the name of Mr Mick Murphy, has been transferred to the Department for Regional Development and will receive a written answer.

Planning Service Enforcement Officers (Belfast)

1. asked the Minister of the Environment how many Planning Service enforcement officers he plans to employ for the Belfast area; and to make a statement.
(AQO238/02)


Three planning officers are devoted to enforcement duties in the Belfast divisional planning office. They comprise one higher professional and technology officer, and two professional and technology officers. Those officers have dedicated administrative support. In addition, a proportion of senior management time in the division is devoted to enforcement work. I have moved to strengthen the management of the development control and enforcement sections in the Belfast division and other divisions, and that should have a positive impact on the Belfast division’s ability to deal with enforcement casework.
As the Member is aware, a Bill is before the Assembly to streamline and considerably strengthen my Department’s enforcement powers. The aims of the Planning (Amendment) Bill are to make it simpler and easier for the Department’s enforcement officers to take enforcement action against those who flout planning law, to make available to the Department tough new enforcement powers and to make stiffer penalties available to the courts. I plan to review enforcement staffing levels in Belfast and other planning offices after the Bill becomes law.


I remind the Minister and the House that the answer that he has given to me is exactly the same as the one he gave to me on 30 April 2002, which was that three full-time enforcement officers were employed and that he would move to strengthen the management of the development control and enforcement sections in the Belfast division. That was his answer on the 30 April, and it is still his answer in the first week of October. I visited the office recently and know that there is only one enforcement officer, who is dealing with 777 cases. Two officers are on leave. What does the Minister mean when he says that he has
"moved to strengthen the management."?
My constituents would be in despair to think that five months later the answer remains the same. There are not three officers in place — there is only one.


I empathise entirely with what the Member said about the lack of enforcement officers. There is a total of 21 officers throughout Northern Ireland — four of the divisional planning offices have three officers each, and three of the offices have three officers each. Many thousands of enforcement cases are brought each year; I am aware of the problem. However, there is a certain thing called money, which is needed so that we can have more enforcement officers in place. It is hoped that that money may come through in the Budget process.
One issue that must be addressed in the Budget process is the planning process itself. I hasten to add that a strengthened Planning (Amendment) Bill is in the offing, with new enforcement powers, increased fines and penalties for non-compliance. I hope that, collectively, those provisions will act as a deterrent to the lack of will to abide by the law. In that context, when the Bill is passed, the necessity for additional staff will be reviewed.


I welcome the Minister’s response, at least in relation to the provision of new enforcement officers, if not the intention to deliver them. Will he confirm that, although there is a need for more officers in Belfast, the same need exists in other areas, for example in the Ards borough? Moreover, does he agree that, with the Department’s reluctance to employ extra enforcement officers, many enforcement actions are on hold? Does he not feel that action should be taken to clear those up? Some of them have been on hold for 12 to 24 months.


I agree that there are other areas in Northern Ireland besides Belfast. I referred to all of the areas in Northern Ireland where officers were placed. There is no reluctance on the part of the Department of the Environment — and certainly not on my part — to ensure that the law is enforced. I repeat: I want to see planning decisions taken efficiently and effectively for those within the law, and I want those outside the law to be dealt with as efficiently and effectively.


Regarding planning enforcement in south Belfast, could the Minister inform the House as to the current position regarding the building of some apartments, together with a lift shaft, in the principal’s house at Union Theological College, which break a historic skyline?


Union Theological College is a very important listed building. At the "Look up to Belfast" seminar last week, we saw that other places in the world try to maintain their listed buildings by utilising them, improving them internally and ensuring that they are in good stead for usage. That is what has happened to Union Theological College. It has been retained in ownership and continues to be used as it was previously used. I recognise that the skyline has been broken asymmetrically. However, the building fulfils what could be called "international standards" for its type in that nothing can be removed from what was put in place originally.
Section 19 of the Disability and Discrimination Act 1995 requires us to make buildings available to the disabled. Having said that, when I received the written question I examined the process by which this decision was reached by the Environment and Heritage Service very closely.

Development of Brownfield Sites

3. asked the Minister of the Environment what measures is he taking to encourage developers to use brownfield sites for new developments?
(AQO271/02)


The regional development strategy sets an aspirational target of 60% of new urban housing growth in settlements of population of 5,000 or more, to be accommodated in existing urban limits as defined at the 2001 baseline year. That has been referred to as the brownfield target. The strategy also advocates that the potential for achieving the target is to be assessed through the development plan process using urban capacity studies. My Department is already carrying out urban capacity studies in association with the preparation of current plans. These will be published along with each draft plan to provide the public with the technical reason behind the choice of housing sites. My Department adopts a sequential approach in allocating lands for housing in the preparation of development plans.
Urban capacity studies form the important first stage by identifying potential sites within the urban limits. Allowance is then made for windfall sites — for example, sites in urban areas that become available over the course of the plan period due to unforeseen land use changes.
Lands are allocated on greenfield sites, including locations where extension to existing settlements may be necessary to meet the balance of housing growth as identified in the regional development strategy. Land is allocated for housing in the development plan in phases. The emphasis in the first phase is on the development of land in the existing urban limits, which will ensure that priority is given to brownfield sites in the allocation of land for urban housing growth.


Other measures could be taken to encourage people to use brownfield sites. Does the Minister agree that the best incentive to encourage people to do that is to veto greenfield sites?


That is the fascinating dimension of planning: the tensions all around. Ms Lewsley would prefer developers to be encouraged to use brownfield sites only, whereas others want to use greenfield sites as well. Planning depends on striking a balance between conflicting and competing demands: urban and rural; and sustaining the environment while providing for economic growth. Many and varied tensions must be resolved, and, although I welcome Ms Lewsley’s suggestion that there may be other options, my solution to urban capacity studies, windfall land and greenfield sites focuses my mind on brownfield sites.


The Minister accepts that it is important to encourage developers to build on brownfield sites. Does he accept also that there are problems because many area plans are out of date? Does he, therefore, accept that it is urgent that up-to-date area plans be drafted so that brownfield and greenfield developments remain in proper proportion?


Although I do not wish to be disrespectful, my answer will be brief. Dr McCrea, the Chairperson of the Environment Committee, is correct. Many of the plans are out of date, so new plans need to be drafted quickly. If anyone objects to a plan, it goes to a public inquiry, and, as always in planning, many people object. However, I agree with Dr McCrea’s remarks.


Will the Minister tell the House what steps he is taking to ensure that town cramming — and I mean town cramming, not town planning — resulting from an overprovision of high-density developments or apartments, which are out of keeping with an area, is avoided?


General planning law provides various policy planning statements (PPS). For example, PPS 7, ‘Quality Residential Environments’, deals with the problem of town cramming — plans for new buildings must show their relationship with existing developments. Also, the Department for Regional Development is introducing PPS 12, which takes a holistic view of the need to provide a suitable environment, with green areas and space, for those who chose to live in urban areas. Therefore there are various means of ensuring that town cramming is avoided.

Waste Disposal and Recycling

4. asked the Minister of the Environment to make a statement on any meetings which have taken place with district council environmental departments regarding waste disposal and recycling.
(AQO267/02)


My Department has regularly met representatives of district councils, mainly through the strategic inter-group forum, which comprises representatives from the Department and the three waste management partnerships. The forum was established to assist with the implementation of the waste management strategy, which was published in March 2000. Recently, it has focused on finalising the partnership’s waste management plans and funding.
Recycling is a significant element in the three final draft plans that were submitted to the Department at the end of June 2002. The allocations to councils under last year’s waste management grant scheme were largely spent on the infrastructure needed to support those recycling targets. A similar pattern of expenditure is expected this year. Officials and I have met with individual councils and groups of councils about a range of waste management issues. Waste management is a standing item on the agenda of my quarterly meetings with the Northern Ireland Local Government Association. My Department and I value such close contact with councils, because it is vital to the successful implementation of the waste management strategy.


I was aware that some work was being done, but I was unaware of its extent, and I thank the Minister for that.
Does the Minister agree that educating the public is another essential part of the strategy in the development of waste disposal and recycling? Will he give me some idea about what is being discussed in his meetings on that subject?


I agree that it is important to educate the public, and I thank Mrs Bell for her complimentary comments about how far the process has moved. We are all part of the waste problem; therefore, we must all be part of the solution. We must be aware of the contribution that we can make. Resources have been spent on public awareness, and £1·5 million is available for that over three years. Surveys on our Wake up to Waste campaign showed that there was 30% more use of waste disposal and recycling units in certain district council areas, for example. Other statistics show that people are more aware of the need to deal with waste. Therefore we are confident, to a certain extent, of a heightened awareness of the problem of waste. It is now for this Administration, working with the three partnership councils that are legally responsible for waste disposal, to develop plans that will bring us to the point of reducing, reusing and recycling waste.


Go raibh maith agat. Will the Minister detail what funding support packages are available for education and awareness?


I must have wax in my ears today, because that is the second time that I have had difficulty understanding Mr Murphy. Could he speak slightly louder?


What funding support packages are available to district councils for education and awareness?


As I said, district councils contribute to that. The funding that is available is primarily for councils to begin implementing waste management plans — for example, we have a waste management grant scheme that goes to councils, for which £3·85 million is available this financial year. However, that is still awaiting the approval of the Department of Finance and Personnel. Public awareness is dealt with through schemes funded by the £1·5 million that I mentioned to Mrs Bell. A total of £7·4 million is available for various measures to ensure that there is education about waste management and various available methods of dealing with waste.


The Minister will be aware of district councils’ growing problems with refrigerators and freezers — one is tempted to say that the figures make chilling reading. Will the Minister tell the House what steps his Department is taking to comply with the proposed EU Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive on the disposal and recycling of refrigerators and freezers?


If the Member were referring to washing machines, I would ask the Minister to come clean about it.


Do you want me to come clean about that, Mr Deputy Speaker? When the Member mentioned chilling, it reminded me of something that my daughter said to me the other day. I was getting a little animated, and she said "Take a chill pill, Dad"; in other words, she said that I should chill out. Perhaps that is also appropriate.
The disposal of fridges and freezers has been a problem. Grants totalling £250,000 have been made available to district councils for that, and we are awaiting the return of tenders for a contract to deal with that problem. We anticipate that we could be in a position to have the outstanding fridges dealt with by an all-island contract towards the end of the year.


I have listened with interest to the Minister’s replies. Does the Minister not think that a regional approach to waste disposal and recycling would be much better than having three different councils involved in the programme?
Secondly, it is not possible to meet the EU Directive unless the disposal of recyclable items is honestly dealt with. Recycled glass and waste paper have always had an indifferent market. Has the Minister researched whether proper recycling markets can be established, on a wider basis than this region, which would make it possible to meet the requirements of the Directive?


I appreciate Mr Gibson’s question, as he deals with the nub of the issue — the regional basis of waste disposal and recycling. He mentioned also the possibility of carrying out research in other regions. I have considered other areas and found that two traits arise throughout Europe and the rest of the world. The first is that it takes up to 10 years to get to the required standard, and the second important point is that there is a three-way split in waste disposal, the first two of which account for 30% each — recycling and landfill. The remainder is a gap that is filled, even in the most environmentally friendly countries, by what is called waste to energy; thermal; or that encapsulating word "incineration". Dr McDonnell found his visit to an incineration plant in Copenhagen very informative.
There are problems to be solved, and we must bite the bullet. The volume of our waste is much too high and must be dealt with. Compared with an average of 30% of waste going into a hole in the ground in Europe, 95% of our waste follows that route. We have a long way to go, and we must be realistic about the matter.
On the issue of sustainable markets, £1·4 million out of that £7·4 million is allocated to providing such markets for recycled goods. I have considered the issue throughout Europe and further afield, to Japan, to find out how the most developed and environmentally friendly countries deal with waste. We have a long way to go to reach that standard.


Mr Dalton is not in his place, so I call Mrs Carson.

Wind Farm Planning Application and the Tourist Board (Tappaghan Mountain)

6. asked the Minister of the Environment, in relation to the proposed Tappaghan Mountain wind farm application, why the Northern Ireland Tourist Board was consulted, as it had not previously been consulted on wind farm planning applications.
(AQO232/02)


While it is not always the practice to consult the Northern Ireland Tourist Board in relation to wind farms, the Department considered it necessary to do so in County Fermanagh because of the number of wind farm planning applications, the quality of the landscape and the need to protect natural tourism assets.
The proposed wind farm at Tappaghan Mountain is one of three current planning applications for wind farms in County Fermanagh. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board is being consulted about each of these proposals in order to obtain information required to arrive at a planning decision.


I am delighted that consultation is being carried out with the Tourist Board, as Fermanagh depends greatly on tourism. Does the Minister agree that consultation with the Tourist Board should continue in respect of the erection of all wind farms across the Province? Our renowned landscape will be spoiled. Will the Minister undertake to explore and, perhaps, seed-fund other forms of renewable energy, especially from farmyard waste?


That is another fascinating question about renewable energy. Northern Ireland is a region of the United Kingdom, which is the fourth richest economy in the world, and therefore much energy is needed. The question is how we provide the energy, whether it is renewable energy, or fossil fuel, which adds to carbon dioxide emissions. Those are fundamental questions that need to be asked. Mrs Carson mentioned consultation on wind farms. If a windmill is made of two or more turbines connected to a wind farm, or if a windmill has only one turbine, but is in excess of 15 metres high, an environmental statement must be made requiring consultation. Mrs Carson’s question fundamentally concerned the forms of renewable energy. That is a fascinating question that is easy to ask, but difficult to answer.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. If there is to be a preponderance of wind farms in areas such as Fermanagh, principally because of the lack of areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) status, and because companies carry out very limited consultation with local people, the Minister will find that, although we are all for green energy, there will be difficulties in the coming years in locating green energy generators in the right places. Lack of AONB status could mean that the tourism value of places such as Fermanagh will be destroyed by the preponderance of wind farms.


I assure Mr McHugh that the tourism dimension is very important, although it is not within my remit. The tourist industry in Northern Ireland makes up a small proportion of the gross domestic product (GDP) compared with Scotland. If we could raise that to the same level as in Scotland, the industry would be much enhanced. This raises the matter of wind farms on the north coast. The wind turbines can be seen on the horizon on the Glens of Antrim as one travels up the M2 to the Antrim coast. With regard to sustainable development, a balance must be found between sustaining the economy and protecting the environment. The protection of the environment is an essential, axiomatic element of tourism.

Section 115 Limit

7. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the circumstances in which his Department will permit an increase in the section 115 limit imposed on district councils for expenditure on special purposes; and to make a statement.
(AQO239/02)


Section 115 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 makes provision for district councils to incur expenditure for special purposes. The legislation imposes a limit on such expenditure in any one financial year, equivalent to half a penny in the pound on the rateable value of the district. The Department advises councils of this figure at the beginning of each financial year. I have no power to increase this statutory limit, but there is a case for reviewing the provision as the limit was fixed many years ago. I will address the matter when the appropriate legislative opportunity arises.


I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. Does the Minister accept that councils should be empowered to act to ensure well-being? Councils should have the maximum opportunity to decide how to invest ratepayers’ money on priority local concerns, in the best interests of the community.


The Member used the words "maximum opportunity", but in the context of section 115, the advice is that councils should ascertain the extent of other statutory powers before making recourse to section 115. For example, the new Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill proposes enhanced financial powers with regard to economic development. That is a possible way to deal with the matter.


I welcome the Minister’s statement. Derry City Council has discussed the matter quite a bit because of concerns for people who were away from home, and whom we could not visit. I welcome the fact that the Minister will review this aspect of local government, and I look forward to seeing that happen in the next Assembly.


Again, I thank Mrs Courtney for her comment, rather than her question.

Environment and Heritage Service

8. asked the Minister of the Environment what measures he proposes to reduce the time taken by the Environment and Heritage Service in providing responses regarding planning applications.
(AQO234/02)
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)


Together with the Planning Service, my Department’s Environment and Heritage Service has reviewed the effectiveness of the arrangements for consulting on planning applications. The review identified weaknesses in the consultation process, most of which were attributable to resource pressures in the Environment and Heritage Service. It also identified some areas where improvements could be made quickly.
To address the pressure, a bid for additional resources was made in the spending review 2002. The proposed allocations to my Department in the draft Budget do not suggest that it will be possible to meet the resource pressures. However, I will not be able to come to a definitive conclusion until the Budget is finalised later in the year.
The Environment and Heritage Service and the Planning Service are introducing early improvements that are not dependent on new resources being obtained.


Will the Minister specifically examine the number of planning applications in the Carrickfergus town centre area, where the Environment and Heritage Service has engaged consultants to work on its behalf? When the developers get the problems identified by consultants out of the way and they are about to progress, they suddenly find a new set of problems. That has resulted in some applications being in the system since around 1999.


First, I have one general point. There are approximately 3,400 applications a year. Some of those involve the built heritage and some involve the natural heritage, so there are in total 5,236 consultations. There are not many staff to deal with those, the same problem that applied to a previous question.
I am conscious of 4 Governors Place in Carrickfergus. That is a rather complex planning application because it involves demolition, retention of listed buildings and some apartments. The Environment and Heritage Service consulted a second time on that. I understand that the planners will meet the architect to see if we can reach a best outcome. That meeting is forthcoming. However, I stress that there are always tensions in planning that must be resolved.


I am afraid our time is up. Mr Sean Neeson was to come next, and I assume that the Minister will respond with a written answer.


That is my regret.

First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Reinvestment and Reform Initiative

Mr Roy Beggs: 1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) what provisions have been made, in the draft Budget, for the Office’s plans regarding the reform and reinvestment initiative.
(AQO250/02)

Rt Hon David Trimble: Our office is taking the lead in developing legislation on behalf of the Executive to establish the strategic investment board and to allow for the regeneration, through the reinvestment and reform initiative, of former security and military sites. The draft Budget does not contain specific provision for the strategic investment board or for the costs associated with the transfer of sites because we were unable to quantify those meaningfully when proposals for the draft Budget were drawn up. The situation will be reviewed when the final Budget is prepared and when work on the initiative is taken into account in the next few moths.
The provision in the draft Budget for infrastructure for 2004-05 and 2005-06, which was announced on 24 September, is insufficient to tackle our infrastructure deficit. More is needed for our capital programmes, but more will come through the reinvestment and reform initiative, which we hope will be announced later in the autumn.

Mr Roy Beggs: Does the First Minister agree that the reinvestment and reform initiative provides an important financial opportunity to address the water and sewerage infrastructure deficits which exist throughout Northern Ireland and which are restricting development in my constituency? Does the Minister agree that the reinvestment and reform initiative could play an important role in maintaining existing jobs and, perhaps, in creating new ones?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Member is correct; the object of the exercise is to address the infrastructure deficit and to provide resources for it. We already have a significant increase in resources, thanks to the immediate measures that we negotiated with the Treasury, and we expect legislation to be forthcoming from Westminster that will give us a substantial borrowing power that will greatly add to our available options. Of course, the Administration and the Assembly must consider carefully how those options are exercised.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Will the First Minister confirm that all the infrastructure work that was referred to in the last question could be carried out by the existing Departments, without setting up an expensive strategic investment board or expensive development corporations, as proposed in the Strategic Planning Bill? Will he tell the House whether setting up new quangos is consistent with the promises that he made to sweep away quangos as a result of administrative reform? Does he not find it grotesque that, while talking about tumbling the institutions, he is in the process of putting through a Bill that is designed only to give him more opportunities to promote his cronies?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Member is tempting fate by using the word "grotesque", and I shall not pursue that further. There is substantial underinvestment in infrastructure, and a substantial job must be done. The initiative is not merely about reinvestment; it is about reinvestment and reform. The intention is to improve how we do things, and the Administration has not been as effective as we would have liked in pursuing public-private partnerships and exploring the options there. We are centralising expertise so that the 10 Departments do not each have to reinvent the wheel. That is why we want to attract skills and disciplines from parts of the private sector to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the system. It will be cost-effective, but working through the existing Departments — the old silo-type system — has clearly been inadequate and is unlikely to be adequate for our current situation. I am sorry that the Member is such an old stick-in-the-mud.

Mr Speaker: I wish to advise the House that question 5, standing in the name of Mr Fee, has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer.

Equality Commission

Mrs Eileen Bell: 2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to give an update on the implementation of the Equality Commission’s legal services’ audit report recommendations; and to make a statement.
(AQO244/02)

Mr Mark Durkan: In January 2002, the Department queried the Equality Commission’s increasing expenditure on legal fees. The Department asked the Commission to carry out an internal audit of its financial systems and procedures relating to the legal services budget. We agreed the terms of reference for the audit, which covered three distinct areas: the reasons for the increasing expenditure on legal fees; a review of the processes for commissioning and paying legal fees and budgetary financial management and approval systems; and a review of systems and processes in the legal division as a whole, with reference to the integration of services across all the legislative grounds.
The auditor’s final report on the first two areas was presented to the Equality Commission on 5 July, and the Department asked the Commission to draw up an implementation plan for the recommendations. That has been accomplished and is being monitored by the Department. Significant progress has been made on implementing those recommendations.
The third part of the review, which will include benchmarking the legal services directorate against other organisations carrying out similar functions, is due to be completed by the end of November.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the Deputy First Minister for his answer to that important question. Does he agree that recent newspaper reports on this, which I understand are generally inaccurate, must be dealt with, so that staff morale is not further undermined?

Mr Mark Durkan: I recognise that concerns have arisen over newspaper reports. Staff morale is a significant factor, and the Department hopes to ensure that any damage is compensated for by progress. As well as that, those who want the Equality Commission to be available to give support must have their confidence in and concerns about the Commission addressed.

Mrs Annie Courtney: Is OFMDFM concerned that some people have had legal assistance withdrawn at short notice, and was it aware that that would happen? Does OFMDFM agree that the Equality Commission is well funded, and can it say what support it provides?

Mr Mark Durkan: I agree that the Equality Commission is well funded. It gets £6·7 million each year while the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission gets only £750,000 and the South’s equality authority gets 5 million euros — about half the funding for twice the number of people. The Commission may spend up to £1·8 million on legal assistance this financial year. That is well over budget. Last year it is estimated that the UK Disability Rights Commission spent £220,000.
OFMDFM was not aware that the Equality Commission had started to withdraw assistance at short notice, and as it was concerned about that, it met with the Equality Commission. OFMDFM is monitoring the situation to see what additional resources should be made available to it this year to ensure that important aspects of its work are carried forward, while dealing with increased expenditure on legal fees. OFMDFM wants to ensure that assistance is not withdrawn at short notice and that the large increase in expenditure and legal aid do not prevent the Commission from carrying out other important aspects of its work. OFMDFM has also agreed measures to assist the Commission to manage its legal aid strategy. The Equality Commission is not a legal aid body and should not be expected to act as such. At a personal level, I would like to see legal aid made available for such cases.

Mrs Joan Carson: Will the Minister agree that, in the past, the Equality Commission has been too willing to back every case brought to it and that that has been the cause of its financial problems? That policy has also discredited the Equality Commission in the eyes of the public.

Mr Mark Durkan: Unlawful discrimination is unacceptable. The Equality Commission is a strategic enforcement body that enforces existing anti-discrimination law and uses its resources to ensure the development of legal issues. Support to complainants is one of the ways in which the Equality Commission can fulfil its functions to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity.
Last year, in recognition of the increasing proportion of its budget that was being taken up by legal fees, and of the need to bring a more strategic focus and coherence to the consideration of requests for assistance, the Equality Commission undertook a review of its legal assistance strategy. The review identified the need for a more strategic use of its legal budget. Again, I make the point that the Equality Commission is not responsible for providing legal aid and cannot be expected to act as if it is. Legal aid is a reserved matter, and it is the Lord Chancellor’s policy not to provide legal aid to tribunal cases. I have already given my view on that matter.

Executive Meeting

Mr David McClarty: 3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline the date of the next Executive meeting and what will be on the agenda.
(AQO251/02)

Rt Hon David Trimble: There is a schedule, but unless there are some dramatic developments, I have great difficulty in seeing how the Executive, as presently constituted, can meet again.

Members: Hear, hear.

Mr David McClarty: Is it conceivable that, had security matters rested with the Executive, infiltration to the extent admitted by the Secretary of State would have happened under the First Minister’s watch?

Mr Sammy Wilson: He helped it.

Mr David McClarty: I will get back to my point and leave Flipper to get on with it.
Furthermore, would the question of concealing stolen documents to that scale of for more than three months have arisen?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Member raises hypothetical points, and some of those matters may be unknowable. However, there is no doubt that serious questions must be asked about how the Northern Ireland Office conducted its business and the level of regulation that it imposed. I hope that, at an appropriate time, in the not-too-distant future, the Secretary of State will institute a proper inquiry into what happened on his watch and put the findings in the public domain.

Dr Joe Hendron: Will the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister ask the Executive, if and when they meet, to recall the Minister for Regional Development’s triumphant statement to the Assembly on 20 May this year? The Minister announced approval for development at Harland & Wolff’s harbour estate of land that was no longer required for shipbuilding, permitting the financing of a new business plan. Will he establish whether the proposal of 200 redundancies is part of that business plan, or whether it is an attempt to free up even more Harland & Wolff land for disgraceful speculative profit at the expense of those unfortunate workers?

Rt Hon David Trimble: There was a brief discussion of those matters at the Executive’s last meeting. Sir Reg Empey gave the Executive an account of the development of the situation. As I recall — and I hope that I recall accurately — the protective notices with regard to redundancy were necessitated by the state of the construction of vessels at Harland & Wolff; the second ship is about to be completed. He also told us about discussions on the development of the harbour estate. Plans are being prepared, and these matters will be brought before the Executive again, when appropriate. With regard to the redevelopment of the estate, an effort is being made to include more light industry and commercial development as a means to replace the jobs that are threatened and the jobs that have already been lost.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the First Minister speak and act with caution — as a lawyer, he ought to know to do so — so as not to further prejudice legal proceedings against an individual who works in this Assembly?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The phrase about beams and motes comes to mind, with regard to the behaviour, not only of the Member who asked that question, but of his party. If he considers the way in which his party and his associates have behaved over the course of recent weeks and months, he might have thought twice about asking such a question.

Third-World Link

Mr John Dallat: 4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what progress has been made towards establishing a linkage with a Third-World country; and to make a statement.
(AQO247/02)

Mr Mark Durkan: No official or formal links have yet been established between the Executive and a developing country. However, we recognise that the people of Northern Ireland have a long and well-renowned tradition of supportive links with developing countries through the valuable work of Concern, Trocaire, Christian Aid and other charities. I had intended to visit Malawi in late August to see the excellent work being carried out by Concern and other relief organisations. However, due to my mother’s terminal illness, I was unable to go.
In the Assembly we have already established an all-party group on international development. We need to consider how the work of that group and perhaps the activities of something such as the commonwealth local government good practice scheme, which is funded by the UK Government, can assist in developing stronger and more valuable links with developing countries, as recently reflected in the Member’s comments during the Programme for Government debate.

Mr John Dallat: I applaud the Minister’s interest in Third-World issues. Is he aware that Coleraine Borough Council has recently established a linkage with the city council in Zomba in Malawi, the country that he referred to? Will he encourage other councils to consider similar procedures? Assuming that normality breaks out in the House, would he avail of an early opportunity to visit Malawi so that he can reinforce the Assembly’s concern for the people of Africa and the Third World generally?

Mr Mark Durkan: The links being developed between Coleraine Borough Council and Malawi through the twinning process are worthy of our fullest support. I would certainly encourage other councils to follow that sort of initiative. I am aware that in the past similar initiatives were undertaken by Derry City Council in relation to Kebele 37 in Addis Ababa. More recently, there have been some links between Derry and El Salvador. Sharing experience and expertise between local authorities and developing countries can lead to mutually beneficial relationships through which we can all learn. In circumstances where many of us like to tell each other that the eyes of the world are upon us — when the truth is the eyes of the world more generally roll up to heaven every time we seem to put ourselves into another crisis — it is right that that we take a wider view of the world and see our responsibilities and our role in that world context.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Is the Deputy First Minister content that his partner in Government has already got Third-World links with a terrorist guerrilla organisation in Colombia? Does he not believe that it sets a bad example to the Third World that we have gunmen established in our Government? During the last 72 hours, has the First Minister expressed to the Deputy First Minister a willingness to remove his Ministers, who prop up Sinn Féin in this Government?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Member is referring to matters that are the subject of legal proceedings in Colombia. We must let those events take their course there.
In circumstances where there are all sorts of stories about all sorts of conversations and records of conversations being leaked and briefed, I will let the Member receive whatever leak he has or may get of any conversation that I have had with the First Minister through the DUP’s normal course, rather than taking the opportunity to reveal those conversations here.

Mr Robert McCartney: In view of the fact that we now have a Health Service that has the longest waiting lists in Europe, a sewerage infrastructure that forbids the development of property and a water system that is currently inviting fines from the EU, does the Deputy First Minister agree that we have much in common with Third-World countries and much to learn from their experiences?

Mr Mark Durkan: We face significant challenges in relation to infrastructure and the public service estate. We have undertaken the reinvestment and reform initiative precisely because we face those significant challenges due to the backlog of underinvestment during direct rule. We treat those problems seriously.
As to likening those challenges to some of the challenges that the Third World faces, I would say — as I would in relation to any developing countries — that the best context in which they can face those challenges, and manage those public expenditure and public service issues, is by having truly democratic arrangements available and in operation.

Strategic Investment Body

Mr Francie Molloy: 6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to give an update on the proposals for the creation of the strategic investment body.
(AQO230/02)

Mr Mark Durkan: Following the announcement of the reinvestment and reform initiative in May, we established a project board, on which all the parties in the Executive are represented, to advise us on the way forward on the development of the strategic investment board. During the summer the project board considered the detailed arrangements for the strategic investment board and how it should function.
At the Executive’s meeting on 23 July, it was agreed that work should begin immediately to prepare the necessary legislation to establish the strategic investment board. The Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Bill was introduced on 30 September and will have its Second Stage tomorrow. We hope to complete the Bill’s passage through the Assembly and for it to receive Royal Assent by March 2003. There is confidence for you.
In the coming weeks the project board will undertake more detailed work to define how the board will carry out its functions and to identify the types of skills and expertise required to enable the board to operate successfully. It will also address other key issues, such as corporate governance and accountability.

Mr Francie Molloy: I thank the Minister for his confidence. I hope that we will get it all done by the end of the week. I hope that we will have that situation. Will the Minister explain the role of the investment body in the likely public-private partnership (PPP) or private finance initiative (PFI) contracts?

Mr Mark Durkan: The board will be there at a broad level to serve the Executive’s strategic investment approach and centralise the expertise needed to manage the increased levels of capital investment that we are hoping to achieve using the reinvestment and reform initiative. It is hoped that by so doing we will reduce the amount of money that ends up being spent on consultants in our capital undertakings from one contract and project to another.
In providing that advice to the Executive, and in assisting the various Departments in their undertakings, the strategic investment board will be helping to form and advise on Executive views in relation to the use of PPPs where they are deemed to be appropriate as one part of that overall strategic investment portfolio. They are only one part of that, and it is to be a part that adds to the net investment that we are able to achieve, beyond what would be available to us under conventional procurement.

Mr Edwin Poots: Given that we are having a review of public administration in an attempt to create a more efficient Government, why are the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister introducing a Bill that will create a strategic investment board at a cost of £3 million a year plus set-up costs, up to five development corporations costing between £750,000 and £900,000 a year, and a plethora of new civil servants to be added to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister? Are they not satisfied with having more staff in their office than Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair have, and do they now also want to create an office with more staff than George Bush has?

Mr Mark Durkan: The strategic investment board will be there to serve the investment programme of the Executive at large and to ensure that we will be able to improve and increase the capital expenditure that we are undertaking. We have to do that in dramatic ways.
Members will recall that they often criticise cases of underspend and delays involving capital projects. The idea of a strategic investment body is to cut through many of those problems by having expertise centralised and available in Government to support the work of the different Departments and the Executive, and also to reduce the undue reliance on outside consultants. Members often criticise the constant reliance of Departments on outside consultants and want us to do more in-house in a programmed way. That is exactly what the strategic investment body is about.
Consistency is a bit much to ask for, but Members may recall that some time ago all parties represented on the Committee for Finance and Personnel supported a report calling for a new central driver for capital expenditure. The type of case set out in the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s very good report into public-private partnerships and private finance initiatives is exactly the one that we are answering with our proposals for this body.

Sure Start (Shankill Road)

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 7. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the Deputy First Minister’s visit to the Sure Start project, Shankill Road, Belfast.
(AQO261/02)

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Deputy First Minister visited the Shankill Sure Start project at the Alessie Centre on Belfast’s Shankill Road on 17 September. That project operates from three early year family centres — the Alessie centre, the Hanna centre and the Martin centre, which are located in the greater Shankill area. Those centres provide high-quality settings for a range of activities covering play development, health and well-being, and parenting and education. The centres also host a range of drop-in facilities, parent and toddler groups, art and craft sections and one-to-one support services.
The Deputy First Minister was given a presentation on the work of the Shankill Sure Start project. He met with parents and users of the service and saw at first hand the impressive range of facilities, activities and services being delivered to children and families. Giving our children the best possible education, and encouraging people to learn and develop throughout their lives, has a fundamental place in the Programme for Government.
We recognise the longer-term benefits associated with early years education, and the Executive are providing additional support through the Sure Start programme, targeting children under four and their families in areas of need. Initiatives such as the Sure Start project on the Shankill Road help to promote a positive image of the area and demonstrate what can be achieved through communities and statutory agencies working together in partnership.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: Does the First Minister recognise the immense value of such visits, particularly to the staff and the children? Will he consider making a comparable visit to a disadvantaged community in a Nationalist area of Belfast?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I take both of the Member’s points. It is one of the great pleasures for the Deputy First Minister and me, and, indeed, other Ministers, that we can go and visit people delivering services at the sharp end and see what is happening. It is good for us, it is good for them, and it is good for the service. It is one of the pleasures of this business and helps to compensate for other aspects that are not always such a pleasure.
In relation to the Member’s specific proposal, there is a certain parallel that if the Deputy First Minister goes to the Shankill, people say that I should go somewhere else. I shall look at that proposal sympathetically.

Devolution and Financial Allocations to Health

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: 8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline the effect of devolution on the overall allocation of financial resources to health.
(AQO274/02)

Mr Mark Durkan: From the outset, the Executive and the Minister for Finance and Personnel have identified health as one of our main priorities and continue to treat it as such. Since devolution, the Executive have agreed substantial additional resources year-on-year for health and personal social services. During the period 2000-01 to 2003-04, the health budget will have increased by £1·1 billion to over £3 billion, representing growth approaching 60% over the period, and an average growth of 12·8% over that period.
The draft budget announced on 24 September offers £300 million more for health than would be provided through the simple application of the Barnett formula based on changes in English health expenditures. The draft Budget proposals further provide year-on-year increases of 4% and 7·7% in 2004-05 and 2005-06. Health funding for those two years will be further increased by allocations from Executive programme funds and the reinvestment and reform initiative.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Has there has been any assessment of the impact of this money on the National Health Service?
Has it visibly reduced waiting lists? I separate waiting lists for a first appointment from bottlenecks for surgery. Have the bottlenecks or secondary waiting lists for surgery been cleared? If not, why not?

Mr Mark Durkan: The number of people awaiting treatment is a huge concern, and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has confirmed that there will be an expansion in hospital capacity over the next one to two years. The reinvestment and reform initiative has already financed additional capacity that will amount to 100 beds; it is intended to provide additional elective surgery and there are also plans to improve cardiac and cardiology surgery.
There must also be increased investment in community and intermediate care to help to avoid, where possible, hospital admission, to provide for earlier discharge, and to deal with the sort of bottlenecks to which the Member refers.

Mr Speaker: That brings to an end the time for questions to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I do not normally take points of order during Question Time.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Mr Speaker, will you tell the House if the business for tomorrow has been changed? Will the Business Committee tell Members what it is going to do with the motion?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member knows that I do not take points of order during questions to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, but I have already indicated through the usual channels that I will take a question at the end of Question Time. I assume that Dr Paisley’s question is one that may well be asked, but I will take it at the end of Question Time.

Regional Development

Public Transport

Mr Joe Byrne: 1. asked the Minister for Regional Development what immediate proposals he has to increase the number of people using public transport.
(AQO263/02)

Mr Peter Robinson: Mr Speaker, I commend the Business Committee for the decision that you will announce later.

Mr Speaker: Is the Minister indicating that the point of order might not actually be a question of acquiring information from the Speaker?

Mr Peter Robinson: You got your chance and you blew it, Mr Speaker. The consultation proposal, ‘A New Start for Public Transport in Northern Ireland’, which I issued on 17 September, would see the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and its Translink bus and rail subsidiaries amalgamated into a new, dynamic, publicly owned operating company, Transport Northern Ireland. It would also establish an independent public transport regulatory body. Significantly, I am also proposing the progressive injection of private sector finance and expertise into the public transport market insofar as it makes sound commercial sense and is acceptable to the wider community. I am convinced that these proposals would lead to improved public transport provision.
I also propose to issue shortly a consultation paper on extensions to the concessionary fare scheme. If the Assembly is prepared to allocate the resources to enable me to introduce such extensions, I am confident that they will increase public transport usage as well as benefiting less-well-off members of society.
As for capital investment, Translink has 23 new trains on order, has completed work on the Bangor line relay, and will commence work on the Belfast to Whitehead relay this year. Translink is also continuing to upgrade its ageing bus fleet. With the assistance of 50% grant aid from the Department for Regional Development, Translink is expected to spend £5·4 million this year and £11·4 million next year buying about 130 new low-floor buses. These developments should make rail and bus travel more attractive.
Looking further ahead, the 10-year regional transportation strategy includes many measures to encourage greater use of public transport such as refurbishment of stations, improved passenger information systems, more park-and-ride facilities, more quality bus corridors, more town bus services and a rapid transit system for Belfast. However, the outcome for public transport will ultimately be determined in the budgetary process, and I trust that I can call for Mr Byrne’s support in this regard.

Mr Joe Byrne: Does the Minister agree that the number of journeys travelled on public transport declined last year by 2%, and that, therefore, a proactive approach must be taken by Northern Ireland Railways, Ulsterbus and Citybus to make public transport more attractive? Does he accept that the Department for Regional Development has a public responsibility to ensure the increasing use of public transport, including rural areas beyond the Belfast metropolitan area?

Mr Peter Robinson: In spite of the statistics showing significantly increased use of public transport by senior citizens as a result of the free fares scheme, unfortunately there has been a 2% downturn in the number of passenger journeys on public transport. That is a disturbing trend, and it encouraged me to introduce the consultation document ‘A New Start for Public Transport in Northern Ireland’.
Evidence elsewhere in the world shows that where private sector finance and expertise has been introduced into public transport, it has reversed that decline. It has also shown that where public transport is the responsibility of the public sector, the figures decline. That is one factor that we can use to turn the figures around and ensure greater usage.
The Member will know, coming from west Tyrone and also from his background on the Committee for Regional Development, that unless we can raise the standards of the product that we offer to the public, we will not encourage more members of the public to use public transport — hence the injection of Assembly funds into railways and new buses. That kind of good service with regular, dependable, comfortable buses and trains is more likely to encourage people to use public transport than anything else.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Pedestrian Crossings

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 2. asked the Minister for Regional Development what formula is used to assess the need for pedestrian crossings.
(AQO241/02)

Mr Peter Robinson: Roads Service receives many requests for the provision of controlled pedestrian crossings, whether pelican or zebra. Requests are assessed using a formula based on national guidelines to ensure a consistent and equitable approach. Consideration is given to sites if
P x V2 > 0·5 x 108
where P is the number of pedestrians crossing the road per hour, and V is the number of vehicles per hour.
The purpose of the formula is to assess the degree of conflict between pedestrians wishing to cross a road and the number of vehicles using it. The formula acts as an initial sift. If the threshold is exceeded, the site is considered in more detail, and other factors are taken into account when making the decision. Those factors include vehicle speed, road geometry, accident history and proximity to shops, schools, community centres, hospitals, and so on.
This is an important matter and, therefore, I have asked the Roads Service officials to review the formula and the other factors taken into account to ensure that pedestrian crossings are provided where they will be of most benefit. In undertaking the review, my officials will consult the Committee for Regional Development.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I was going to take down the formula, but I got lost. I will get it in Hansard tomorrow.
The Minister will be aware of the demands from elderly people and parents of young children for crossings to ensure safe passage across busy main streets. In the circumstances, can the Minister promote a reduced formula, which would provide crossings and, thus, reduce the risk of injury or fatality?

Mr Peter Robinson: I have asked my officials to report to me after the review. The existing formula — complex though it is — can be tweaked to allow more crossings. It simply involves changing the factor 0·5 in the formula. Nonetheless, there are requirements if we are to be able to fund additional pedestrian crossings. That is another factor that depends on budgetary issues.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: What about saving a life?

Mr Peter Robinson: Sometimes it does not save lives. That depends on the circumstances in the area. The more pedestrian crossings there are, the less regard cars pay to them, and especially to zebra crossings. Many factors must be taken into account. I am happy to allow my officials to speak to the Member, if he wants to submit views to the review. The Department will consult with the Committee for Regional Development to hear its views on the formula and any changes to it.

Mr Jim Shannon: Will the Minister confirm that he intends to change the criteria along the lines that he discussed with elected representatives and community groups at a meeting in Ards and bring them into line with the needs of the people of Northern Ireland? When does he envisage consultation starting and finishing, so that the communities of Ballywalter, Greyabbey, Kircubbin, Millisle, Ballygowan and Comber can benefit from it?

Mr Peter Robinson: The review is under way. I asked officials to carry it out, so, naturally, I assume that they have begun it. It would be unhelpful for me to make any assumptions about its outcome before I have heard what the Committee for Regional Development has to say or what the review establishes.
During the meeting in Ards, I was made aware of several factors, which can be just as important in judging the dangers as the numbers of pedestrians or vehicles. The Department wants to see if the formula can reflect more accurately the danger to people crossing a road, as opposed to the number of pedestrians or vehicles on it.

Mr Derek Hussey: The Minister has answered my query in part. To take the issue of traffic calming beyond pedestrian crossings, I understand that he is looking objectively at the figures and formulae that seem to cause Mr McCarthy so much concern. I urge him to ensure that the review takes a more subjective approach to traffic-calming measures, because it can be difficult for rural communities to meet the indicative figures that the formulas require.

Mr Peter Robinson: Leaving aside pedestrian crossings, traffic-calming measures are determined by a scoring system, which is based on several factors. I am concerned about moving away from objective criteria. If a Minister determines his own subjective criteria, people will question his decisions, and he will have no defence unless he operates according to objective criteria. For that reason I would far prefer to use objective criteria that adequately respond to the dangers that exist in an area rather than subjectively decide, according to the mood of the moment, the most appropriate point to have pedestrian crossings or traffic-calming measures.

New Railway Station (Lisburn)

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 3. asked the Minister for Regional Development to give the proposed timescale for the construction of the new railway station at Lisburn.
(AQO270/02)

Mr Peter Robinson: Translink has plans for a new bus station at Lisburn in its corporate plan for 2002-03 to 2004-05, and it has already commissioned an economic appraisal on its construction, which is due to be completed by the end of the year. If the option to construct a new bus station is accepted by the board of the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and by my Department, the next step will be to put the proposal out to tender. The project can commence when that process is completed, and it is hoped that work will begin before the end of this financial year.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: Will there be adequate provision for disabled access to the new station? Currently, people in a wheelchair and parents with prams have to cross the lines to reach the other side of Lisburn’s railway station.

Mr Peter Robinson: I am happy to confirm that, when I last spoke to Translink about disabled access, it made it very clear that it considered that a priority, not merely for stations which it is constructing but for rolling stock. When we have more details of the proposal, I shall be happy to sit down with the Member and the group with which she is associated to examine the proposal and see if she considers it as adequate as Translink no doubt would.

Mr Edwin Poots: Can the Minister confirm that there are problems with the site proposed by Translink and that meetings have taken place between it and the local council? Are we set on the site which Translink currently wants, or is there a possibility of identifying other sites which may be closer to the railway station and more conducive to traffic flows in Lisburn city centre?

Mr Peter Robinson: I am not aware of any problem with the site. I know that Lisburn City Council would prefer it to be somewhere else. However, the site identified by Translink is one to which it has legal access, and which is, therefore, its obvious choice. It is an operational matter that the council will no doubt wish to take up with Translink directly. However, a station in the middle of Lisburn can be a help to the city centre and should not be considered a nuisance by anyone.

Storm Drainage Impact Assessment

Mr Ken Robinson: 4. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he has taken steps with his Colleague, the Minister of the Environment, to have a storm drainage impact stage inserted into the planning process for new housing development.
(AQO268/02)

Mr Peter Robinson: The development planning process is a matter for the Department of the Environment. I am advised that, as part of that process, the Department of the Environment consults with the Rivers Agency of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development about potential sites for housing and other developments. The Rivers Agency assesses the potential for flooding in the area and whether preventative measures regarding improvements to infrastructure would be required if the site were zoned for development.
There is also consultation with the Water Service, the Roads Service and, where necessary, the Rivers Agency, on planning applications for specific housing developments to ensure that they have adequate facilities for the discharge of storm water and that it will not create or exacerbate flooding problems in the area. The Water Service advises the Planning Service on the availability of water and sewerage services and any difficulties envisaged relating to the capacity of the existing public sewerage infrastructure and the proposed timing of new or improved infrastructure to absorb new development.
I am also advised that some planning applications for housing developments require the submission of an environmental statement under the Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999. Such environmental statements must take account of any significant environmental effects likely from the proposed development and include a description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and, if possible, offset any significant adverse effect on the environment.
Those arrangements ensure that the potential impact of storm-water discharges arising from proposed housing or other developments is properly considered at the stage of the development plan or development control in the existing planning process.

Mr Ken Robinson: I thank the Minister for his very brief answer. What other significant steps does he plan to take to improve the storm-drainage requirements in the vicinity of new housing and commercial developments — and, indeed, those already in existence for at least the past 10 years — with specific reference to the prevention of flooding incidents such as those which have occurred or are likely to occur in parts of Newtownabbey and Carrickfergus?

Mr Peter Robinson: The instances to which the Member refers resulted from significantly higher rainfall than had been experienced for a considerable time. The Assembly will always have a judgement to make regarding the level at which storm drainage facilities should be available.
If the Assembly wants to raise standards, it will have to cough up and give the Department the funding with which to do that. However, the existing planning mechanism gives the Planning Service, the Water Service and the Rivers Agency sufficient ability to consider the storm drainage implications of any planning application. The planning process does not require a new stage. It already includes consideration of that element of planning.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Can the Minister give details of his views on the provision of physical measures, such as mini-roundabouts, which are aimed at reducing the speed of visitors going into, and leaving, housing developments?

Mr Peter Robinson: I can confirm that the speed of traffic will have no impact on storm drainage.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Attwood is not in his place, so I call Mr Sean Neeson.

Flood Damage Compensation

Mr Sean Neeson: 6. asked the Minister for Regional Development, pursuant to AQO40/02, why his Department has refused to compensate people in East Antrim whose properties were damaged by the severe floods in June 2002.
(AQO254/02)

Mr Peter Robinson: Entitlement to compensation from the Department is not automatic. For a claim to be successful, it must be shown that the Department failed to carry out its statutory duty or was negligent in some other way. Every claim is, therefore, thoroughly investigated. If no evidence of negligence by the Department is found, the claim is turned down.
Following the serious flooding that occurred on the evening of Friday 21 June 2002, the Department received 346 claims for compensation. However, the Department’s investigation revealed that the flooding was caused by the exceptional thunderstorms and heavy downpour that occurred that night. Those extreme weather conditions were localised. Flooding in the worst-affected areas — parts of Newtownabbey and Carrickfergus — was exacerbated by water that ran off higher ground. Therefore, in the absence of any other significant factors, the Department believes that it has a defence in law against the claims. In those circumstances, they must be turned down.
As with all claims, the Department’s decision can be challenged through the independent legal process. Claims like those, where the value is under £2,000, fall within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court. However, before any claimants consider that step, I believe that it would be helpful if I had the benefit of an independent opinion from senior counsel on the correctness or otherwise of the Department’s position. I have, therefore, asked my officials to arrange that, and the independent opinion is expected soon. A copy of senior counsel’s opinion will be lodged in the Assembly Library.

Mr Sean Neeson: Many of my constituents received letters from the Department for Regional Development stating that the flooding was an act of God. However, many of the areas that were worst affected by the flooding in June 2002 have been affected regularly — places such as Chichester Square and the lower Woodburn Road. Taylors Avenue in Carrickfergus was flooded and devastated for the third time in a year. Flooding regularly occurs on the Shore Road at Whiteabbey. Many of the residents who are affected by that simply cannot afford house insurance. Many of them have great difficulty getting house insurance because of the regularity of the flooding. Is it not time that the Minister, his Department and the Rivers Agency accepted their responsibility towards my constituents in East Antrim?

Mr Peter Robinson: The rights of the Member’s constituents are no different to those of other Members’ constituents elsewhere in the Province. The same criteria must apply to all. If the Member is suggesting that the Department should fork out money irrespective of the circumstances or whether there was any negligence on its part, that would be absurd. The Assembly simply could not afford to do that. Therefore, negligence on the part of the Department must be clearly shown before any compensation is paid.
I am happy to consider circumstances where there is a case for negligence. However, I honestly believe that I will not have to consider such a case, because the Department’s compensation agency attentively considers any details that suggest that the Department would be unable to sustain a refusal of a claim in court. We are, therefore, keen to ensure that a payment is made where there is a case. With so many cases involved, rather than simply follow the basis of the Department’s initial consideration, I determined that I would have the case considered by independent senior counsel to examine the Department’s legal position.
I have also asked the Department to instruct senior counsel to provide a clear guideline on the circumstances in which it is right and legally required for the Department to make compensation payments. I propose to put a copy of that guideline in the Assembly Library. It will be useful for Members to recognise circumstances that, according to the law as it stands, will give entitlement to compensation and those that are unlikely to. It does not remove anybody’s right to take legal action, but it will give some indication of the circumstances in which a case is likely to be successful.
I can well understand, for I have seen it too many times in my own constituency, the anguish suffered as a result of flooding. However, every flood is not the result of negligence by the Department for Regional Development or the Water Service. We must recognise that if the Assembly were simply to pay every claimant who submitted an application, it would have a very considerable bill to pay, and money would have to be taken from other heads of expenditure.

Mr Roy Beggs: Will the Minister acknowledge that, in refusing all compensation claims, his Department appears to be telling my constituents that it is not at fault and that its agencies never contribute to flooding? Could blocked drains and culverts have contributed to flooding? Will he acknowledge that, where the Roads Service has had to carry out remedial work to repair faulty culverts, that agency’s blocked structures will have contributed to the flooding of some of my constituents’ properties?

Mr Peter Robinson: If blocked drains are the result of negligence by the Department, the Member’s constituents will have a valid claim. However, if, for instance, the Water Service staff clear blockage in a drain on a Thursday, it is blocked on a Friday and flooding occurs, nobody could say that the Department was negligent. Staff cannot stand for 24 hours of every day at every drain throughout the country. That would not be negligence in those circumstances. Therefore, it is necessary to show that the Department has been negligent in how it has dealt with drains and other matters of its responsibility.

Belfast to Bangor Road

Mrs Eileen Bell: 7. asked the Minister for Regional Development to make a statement on the current situation regarding the Belfast to Bangor road (A2).
(AQO252/02)

Mr Peter Robinson: The A2 Belfast to Bangor road is one of the arterial routes into Belfast. It has a two-way traffic flow of almost 40,000 vehicles a day and is of high strategic importance. Safety along the route is of particular concern, and in recent years the Roads Service has implemented several measures directed at improving road safety.
This summer, the Roads Service carried out two important schemes specifically directed at improving the safety and structural condition of the road. One scheme involved resurfacing the section of the road between Whinney Hill and Ballygrainey Road and included a junction improvement at Whinney Hill, localised widening at Cultra Avenue and central hatching between Whinney Hill and Ballygrainey Road. The other scheme involved amendments to the layout and provision of traffic signals at the junction of the A2 Rathgael Road/Old Belfast Road, which has the worst history of accidents on the A2. In addition, work to replace a safety barrier at a tight bend near Seahill continues.
The benefits arising from those improvements are already apparent to all users of the road. I assure the Member that the Roads Service will continue to monitor the road with a view to introducing, where appropriate and practical, further measures to address any safety problems that can be remedied by engineering.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. I congratulate the Roads Service on the improvements to that busy road, especially at Rathgael and Seahill. However, I ask the Minister to ask his Department to take note of the dangers of entering and exiting side roads to the expanding residential development along that road.

Mr Peter Robinson: We are happy to monitor that road regularly and to look at any increase in the number of cars using it, the velocity of traffic or any change in drivers’ behaviour — those are among the Roads Service’s normal duties. Often the first reaction of Members, other elected representatives and others to a road accident is to blame the road. I must put on record that staggering statistics are available that show that in all but 2% of road accidents the fault lies not with the road but with the driver.

Pumping Station (Holywood)

Mrs Joan Carson: 8. asked the Minister for Regional Development in relation to correspondence received by his Department concerning a sewage pumping station in The Coaches, Croft Road, Holywood, to outline measures he has taken, and proposes to take, to address the issues raised.
(AQO245/02)

Mr Peter Robinson: The Water Service will adopt sewerage infrastructure constructed by private developers provided the infrastructure meets the specific requirements set out by Water Service under article 17 of the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1973. The sewage pumping station at The Coaches, Croft Road, Holywood was constructed by Hagan Homes, which developed The Coaches’ housing site. The Water Service was advised that the pumping station has not been adopted due to legal difficulties that relate to the transfer of the land on which the pumping station is located. The Water Service has been in contact with Hagan Homes and its legal advisers on many occasions about the issue, but, regrettably, despite those approaches, it has not yet been possible to bring the matter to a conclusion.

The Environment

Mr Donovan McClelland: Question No 2, which stands in the name of Mr Mick Murphy, has been transferred to the Department for Regional Development and will receive a written answer.

Planning Service Enforcement Officers (Belfast)

Prof Monica McWilliams: 1. asked the Minister of the Environment how many Planning Service enforcement officers he plans to employ for the Belfast area; and to make a statement.
(AQO238/02)

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Three planning officers are devoted to enforcement duties in the Belfast divisional planning office. They comprise one higher professional and technology officer, and two professional and technology officers. Those officers have dedicated administrative support. In addition, a proportion of senior management time in the division is devoted to enforcement work. I have moved to strengthen the management of the development control and enforcement sections in the Belfast division and other divisions, and that should have a positive impact on the Belfast division’s ability to deal with enforcement casework.
As the Member is aware, a Bill is before the Assembly to streamline and considerably strengthen my Department’s enforcement powers. The aims of the Planning (Amendment) Bill are to make it simpler and easier for the Department’s enforcement officers to take enforcement action against those who flout planning law, to make available to the Department tough new enforcement powers and to make stiffer penalties available to the courts. I plan to review enforcement staffing levels in Belfast and other planning offices after the Bill becomes law.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I remind the Minister and the House that the answer that he has given to me is exactly the same as the one he gave to me on 30 April 2002, which was that three full-time enforcement officers were employed and that he would move to strengthen the management of the development control and enforcement sections in the Belfast division. That was his answer on the 30 April, and it is still his answer in the first week of October. I visited the office recently and know that there is only one enforcement officer, who is dealing with 777 cases. Two officers are on leave. What does the Minister mean when he says that he has
"moved to strengthen the management."?
My constituents would be in despair to think that five months later the answer remains the same. There are not three officers in place — there is only one.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I empathise entirely with what the Member said about the lack of enforcement officers. There is a total of 21 officers throughout Northern Ireland — four of the divisional planning offices have three officers each, and three of the offices have three officers each. Many thousands of enforcement cases are brought each year; I am aware of the problem. However, there is a certain thing called money, which is needed so that we can have more enforcement officers in place. It is hoped that that money may come through in the Budget process.
One issue that must be addressed in the Budget process is the planning process itself. I hasten to add that a strengthened Planning (Amendment) Bill is in the offing, with new enforcement powers, increased fines and penalties for non-compliance. I hope that, collectively, those provisions will act as a deterrent to the lack of will to abide by the law. In that context, when the Bill is passed, the necessity for additional staff will be reviewed.

Mr Jim Shannon: I welcome the Minister’s response, at least in relation to the provision of new enforcement officers, if not the intention to deliver them. Will he confirm that, although there is a need for more officers in Belfast, the same need exists in other areas, for example in the Ards borough? Moreover, does he agree that, with the Department’s reluctance to employ extra enforcement officers, many enforcement actions are on hold? Does he not feel that action should be taken to clear those up? Some of them have been on hold for 12 to 24 months.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I agree that there are other areas in Northern Ireland besides Belfast. I referred to all of the areas in Northern Ireland where officers were placed. There is no reluctance on the part of the Department of the Environment — and certainly not on my part — to ensure that the law is enforced. I repeat: I want to see planning decisions taken efficiently and effectively for those within the law, and I want those outside the law to be dealt with as efficiently and effectively.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Regarding planning enforcement in south Belfast, could the Minister inform the House as to the current position regarding the building of some apartments, together with a lift shaft, in the principal’s house at Union Theological College, which break a historic skyline?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Union Theological College is a very important listed building. At the "Look up to Belfast" seminar last week, we saw that other places in the world try to maintain their listed buildings by utilising them, improving them internally and ensuring that they are in good stead for usage. That is what has happened to Union Theological College. It has been retained in ownership and continues to be used as it was previously used. I recognise that the skyline has been broken asymmetrically. However, the building fulfils what could be called "international standards" for its type in that nothing can be removed from what was put in place originally.
Section 19 of the Disability and Discrimination Act 1995 requires us to make buildings available to the disabled. Having said that, when I received the written question I examined the process by which this decision was reached by the Environment and Heritage Service very closely.

Development of Brownfield Sites

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 3. asked the Minister of the Environment what measures is he taking to encourage developers to use brownfield sites for new developments?
(AQO271/02)

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: The regional development strategy sets an aspirational target of 60% of new urban housing growth in settlements of population of 5,000 or more, to be accommodated in existing urban limits as defined at the 2001 baseline year. That has been referred to as the brownfield target. The strategy also advocates that the potential for achieving the target is to be assessed through the development plan process using urban capacity studies. My Department is already carrying out urban capacity studies in association with the preparation of current plans. These will be published along with each draft plan to provide the public with the technical reason behind the choice of housing sites. My Department adopts a sequential approach in allocating lands for housing in the preparation of development plans.
Urban capacity studies form the important first stage by identifying potential sites within the urban limits. Allowance is then made for windfall sites — for example, sites in urban areas that become available over the course of the plan period due to unforeseen land use changes.
Lands are allocated on greenfield sites, including locations where extension to existing settlements may be necessary to meet the balance of housing growth as identified in the regional development strategy. Land is allocated for housing in the development plan in phases. The emphasis in the first phase is on the development of land in the existing urban limits, which will ensure that priority is given to brownfield sites in the allocation of land for urban housing growth.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: Other measures could be taken to encourage people to use brownfield sites. Does the Minister agree that the best incentive to encourage people to do that is to veto greenfield sites?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: That is the fascinating dimension of planning: the tensions all around. Ms Lewsley would prefer developers to be encouraged to use brownfield sites only, whereas others want to use greenfield sites as well. Planning depends on striking a balance between conflicting and competing demands: urban and rural; and sustaining the environment while providing for economic growth. Many and varied tensions must be resolved, and, although I welcome Ms Lewsley’s suggestion that there may be other options, my solution to urban capacity studies, windfall land and greenfield sites focuses my mind on brownfield sites.

Rev William McCrea: The Minister accepts that it is important to encourage developers to build on brownfield sites. Does he accept also that there are problems because many area plans are out of date? Does he, therefore, accept that it is urgent that up-to-date area plans be drafted so that brownfield and greenfield developments remain in proper proportion?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Although I do not wish to be disrespectful, my answer will be brief. Dr McCrea, the Chairperson of the Environment Committee, is correct. Many of the plans are out of date, so new plans need to be drafted quickly. If anyone objects to a plan, it goes to a public inquiry, and, as always in planning, many people object. However, I agree with Dr McCrea’s remarks.

Mr David McClarty: Will the Minister tell the House what steps he is taking to ensure that town cramming — and I mean town cramming, not town planning — resulting from an overprovision of high-density developments or apartments, which are out of keeping with an area, is avoided?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: General planning law provides various policy planning statements (PPS). For example, PPS 7, ‘Quality Residential Environments’, deals with the problem of town cramming — plans for new buildings must show their relationship with existing developments. Also, the Department for Regional Development is introducing PPS 12, which takes a holistic view of the need to provide a suitable environment, with green areas and space, for those who chose to live in urban areas. Therefore there are various means of ensuring that town cramming is avoided.

Waste Disposal and Recycling

Mrs Eileen Bell: 4. asked the Minister of the Environment to make a statement on any meetings which have taken place with district council environmental departments regarding waste disposal and recycling.
(AQO267/02)

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: My Department has regularly met representatives of district councils, mainly through the strategic inter-group forum, which comprises representatives from the Department and the three waste management partnerships. The forum was established to assist with the implementation of the waste management strategy, which was published in March 2000. Recently, it has focused on finalising the partnership’s waste management plans and funding.
Recycling is a significant element in the three final draft plans that were submitted to the Department at the end of June 2002. The allocations to councils under last year’s waste management grant scheme were largely spent on the infrastructure needed to support those recycling targets. A similar pattern of expenditure is expected this year. Officials and I have met with individual councils and groups of councils about a range of waste management issues. Waste management is a standing item on the agenda of my quarterly meetings with the Northern Ireland Local Government Association. My Department and I value such close contact with councils, because it is vital to the successful implementation of the waste management strategy.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I was aware that some work was being done, but I was unaware of its extent, and I thank the Minister for that.
Does the Minister agree that educating the public is another essential part of the strategy in the development of waste disposal and recycling? Will he give me some idea about what is being discussed in his meetings on that subject?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I agree that it is important to educate the public, and I thank Mrs Bell for her complimentary comments about how far the process has moved. We are all part of the waste problem; therefore, we must all be part of the solution. We must be aware of the contribution that we can make. Resources have been spent on public awareness, and £1·5 million is available for that over three years. Surveys on our Wake up to Waste campaign showed that there was 30% more use of waste disposal and recycling units in certain district council areas, for example. Other statistics show that people are more aware of the need to deal with waste. Therefore we are confident, to a certain extent, of a heightened awareness of the problem of waste. It is now for this Administration, working with the three partnership councils that are legally responsible for waste disposal, to develop plans that will bring us to the point of reducing, reusing and recycling waste.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat. Will the Minister detail what funding support packages are available for education and awareness?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I must have wax in my ears today, because that is the second time that I have had difficulty understanding Mr Murphy. Could he speak slightly louder?

Mr Mick Murphy: What funding support packages are available to district councils for education and awareness?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: As I said, district councils contribute to that. The funding that is available is primarily for councils to begin implementing waste management plans — for example, we have a waste management grant scheme that goes to councils, for which £3·85 million is available this financial year. However, that is still awaiting the approval of the Department of Finance and Personnel. Public awareness is dealt with through schemes funded by the £1·5 million that I mentioned to Mrs Bell. A total of £7·4 million is available for various measures to ensure that there is education about waste management and various available methods of dealing with waste.

Mr Derek Hussey: The Minister will be aware of district councils’ growing problems with refrigerators and freezers — one is tempted to say that the figures make chilling reading. Will the Minister tell the House what steps his Department is taking to comply with the proposed EU Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive on the disposal and recycling of refrigerators and freezers?

Mr Donovan McClelland: If the Member were referring to washing machines, I would ask the Minister to come clean about it.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Do you want me to come clean about that, Mr Deputy Speaker? When the Member mentioned chilling, it reminded me of something that my daughter said to me the other day. I was getting a little animated, and she said "Take a chill pill, Dad"; in other words, she said that I should chill out. Perhaps that is also appropriate.
The disposal of fridges and freezers has been a problem. Grants totalling £250,000 have been made available to district councils for that, and we are awaiting the return of tenders for a contract to deal with that problem. We anticipate that we could be in a position to have the outstanding fridges dealt with by an all-island contract towards the end of the year.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I have listened with interest to the Minister’s replies. Does the Minister not think that a regional approach to waste disposal and recycling would be much better than having three different councils involved in the programme?
Secondly, it is not possible to meet the EU Directive unless the disposal of recyclable items is honestly dealt with. Recycled glass and waste paper have always had an indifferent market. Has the Minister researched whether proper recycling markets can be established, on a wider basis than this region, which would make it possible to meet the requirements of the Directive?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I appreciate Mr Gibson’s question, as he deals with the nub of the issue — the regional basis of waste disposal and recycling. He mentioned also the possibility of carrying out research in other regions. I have considered other areas and found that two traits arise throughout Europe and the rest of the world. The first is that it takes up to 10 years to get to the required standard, and the second important point is that there is a three-way split in waste disposal, the first two of which account for 30% each — recycling and landfill. The remainder is a gap that is filled, even in the most environmentally friendly countries, by what is called waste to energy; thermal; or that encapsulating word "incineration". Dr McDonnell found his visit to an incineration plant in Copenhagen very informative.
There are problems to be solved, and we must bite the bullet. The volume of our waste is much too high and must be dealt with. Compared with an average of 30% of waste going into a hole in the ground in Europe, 95% of our waste follows that route. We have a long way to go, and we must be realistic about the matter.
On the issue of sustainable markets, £1·4 million out of that £7·4 million is allocated to providing such markets for recycled goods. I have considered the issue throughout Europe and further afield, to Japan, to find out how the most developed and environmentally friendly countries deal with waste. We have a long way to go to reach that standard.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Dalton is not in his place, so I call Mrs Carson.

Wind Farm Planning Application and the Tourist Board (Tappaghan Mountain)

Mrs Joan Carson: 6. asked the Minister of the Environment, in relation to the proposed Tappaghan Mountain wind farm application, why the Northern Ireland Tourist Board was consulted, as it had not previously been consulted on wind farm planning applications.
(AQO232/02)

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: While it is not always the practice to consult the Northern Ireland Tourist Board in relation to wind farms, the Department considered it necessary to do so in County Fermanagh because of the number of wind farm planning applications, the quality of the landscape and the need to protect natural tourism assets.
The proposed wind farm at Tappaghan Mountain is one of three current planning applications for wind farms in County Fermanagh. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board is being consulted about each of these proposals in order to obtain information required to arrive at a planning decision.

Mrs Joan Carson: I am delighted that consultation is being carried out with the Tourist Board, as Fermanagh depends greatly on tourism. Does the Minister agree that consultation with the Tourist Board should continue in respect of the erection of all wind farms across the Province? Our renowned landscape will be spoiled. Will the Minister undertake to explore and, perhaps, seed-fund other forms of renewable energy, especially from farmyard waste?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: That is another fascinating question about renewable energy. Northern Ireland is a region of the United Kingdom, which is the fourth richest economy in the world, and therefore much energy is needed. The question is how we provide the energy, whether it is renewable energy, or fossil fuel, which adds to carbon dioxide emissions. Those are fundamental questions that need to be asked. Mrs Carson mentioned consultation on wind farms. If a windmill is made of two or more turbines connected to a wind farm, or if a windmill has only one turbine, but is in excess of 15 metres high, an environmental statement must be made requiring consultation. Mrs Carson’s question fundamentally concerned the forms of renewable energy. That is a fascinating question that is easy to ask, but difficult to answer.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. If there is to be a preponderance of wind farms in areas such as Fermanagh, principally because of the lack of areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) status, and because companies carry out very limited consultation with local people, the Minister will find that, although we are all for green energy, there will be difficulties in the coming years in locating green energy generators in the right places. Lack of AONB status could mean that the tourism value of places such as Fermanagh will be destroyed by the preponderance of wind farms.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I assure Mr McHugh that the tourism dimension is very important, although it is not within my remit. The tourist industry in Northern Ireland makes up a small proportion of the gross domestic product (GDP) compared with Scotland. If we could raise that to the same level as in Scotland, the industry would be much enhanced. This raises the matter of wind farms on the north coast. The wind turbines can be seen on the horizon on the Glens of Antrim as one travels up the M2 to the Antrim coast. With regard to sustainable development, a balance must be found between sustaining the economy and protecting the environment. The protection of the environment is an essential, axiomatic element of tourism.

Section 115 Limit

Mr Barry McElduff: 7. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the circumstances in which his Department will permit an increase in the section 115 limit imposed on district councils for expenditure on special purposes; and to make a statement.
(AQO239/02)

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Section 115 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 makes provision for district councils to incur expenditure for special purposes. The legislation imposes a limit on such expenditure in any one financial year, equivalent to half a penny in the pound on the rateable value of the district. The Department advises councils of this figure at the beginning of each financial year. I have no power to increase this statutory limit, but there is a case for reviewing the provision as the limit was fixed many years ago. I will address the matter when the appropriate legislative opportunity arises.

Mr Barry McElduff: I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. Does the Minister accept that councils should be empowered to act to ensure well-being? Councils should have the maximum opportunity to decide how to invest ratepayers’ money on priority local concerns, in the best interests of the community.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: The Member used the words "maximum opportunity", but in the context of section 115, the advice is that councils should ascertain the extent of other statutory powers before making recourse to section 115. For example, the new Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill proposes enhanced financial powers with regard to economic development. That is a possible way to deal with the matter.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Derry City Council has discussed the matter quite a bit because of concerns for people who were away from home, and whom we could not visit. I welcome the fact that the Minister will review this aspect of local government, and I look forward to seeing that happen in the next Assembly.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Again, I thank Mrs Courtney for her comment, rather than her question.

Environment and Heritage Service

Mr David Hilditch: 8. asked the Minister of the Environment what measures he proposes to reduce the time taken by the Environment and Heritage Service in providing responses regarding planning applications.
(AQO234/02)
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Together with the Planning Service, my Department’s Environment and Heritage Service has reviewed the effectiveness of the arrangements for consulting on planning applications. The review identified weaknesses in the consultation process, most of which were attributable to resource pressures in the Environment and Heritage Service. It also identified some areas where improvements could be made quickly.
To address the pressure, a bid for additional resources was made in the spending review 2002. The proposed allocations to my Department in the draft Budget do not suggest that it will be possible to meet the resource pressures. However, I will not be able to come to a definitive conclusion until the Budget is finalised later in the year.
The Environment and Heritage Service and the Planning Service are introducing early improvements that are not dependent on new resources being obtained.

Mr David Hilditch: Will the Minister specifically examine the number of planning applications in the Carrickfergus town centre area, where the Environment and Heritage Service has engaged consultants to work on its behalf? When the developers get the problems identified by consultants out of the way and they are about to progress, they suddenly find a new set of problems. That has resulted in some applications being in the system since around 1999.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: First, I have one general point. There are approximately 3,400 applications a year. Some of those involve the built heritage and some involve the natural heritage, so there are in total 5,236 consultations. There are not many staff to deal with those, the same problem that applied to a previous question.
I am conscious of 4 Governors Place in Carrickfergus. That is a rather complex planning application because it involves demolition, retention of listed buildings and some apartments. The Environment and Heritage Service consulted a second time on that. I understand that the planners will meet the architect to see if we can reach a best outcome. That meeting is forthcoming. However, I stress that there are always tensions in planning that must be resolved.

Ms Jane Morrice: I am afraid our time is up. Mr Sean Neeson was to come next, and I assume that the Minister will respond with a written answer.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: That is my regret.

Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill: Consideration Stage

Ms Jane Morrice: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments and will note that there is only one amendment for debate. That will be debated when we reached clause 5. The questions on whether clauses of a Bill stand part will be taken at appropriate points in the debate. If that is clear, we shall proceed.
No amendments have been tabled to clauses 1 to 4. Therefore, I propose by leave of the Assembly to group those clauses for the question on whether they stand part.
Clauses 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 (Compensation for existing businesses)
Question proposed,

Ms Brid Rodgers: Before I move the amendment, I want to say that it is very regrettable that the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development Committee has absented himself from the House and is not here to respond to my amendment. I am moving the amendment in response to the Committee’s views, which I have taken seriously.

Mr Paul Berry: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Brid Rodgers: It is regrettable that the Chairperson is putting his own party political stunts ahead of his duties to the Committee, the Assembly and to —

Mr Paul Berry: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to make a comment against the Chairperson when she is not fully aware of the circumstances of his absence?
The Chairperson of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee is meeting the Security Minister on important matters, including that of the Claudy bomb allegations.

Ms Jane Morrice: Thank you, Mr Berry, for giving us details of the whereabouts of the Committee Chairperson. Minister, please continue.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I beg to move the following amendment: In page 3, line 35, at end insert —
"(4) The scheme shall provide that payments shall not be made under the scheme in respect of a business which was first carried on after a date specified in the scheme".
The amendment relates to clause 5, which deals with compensation for existing businesses. Clause 5, subsection (3), provides that the Department may make a scheme to provide for compensation for those affected by the ban on fur farming and sets out what such a scheme shall include. In its scrutiny of the Bill, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development thought that it would be desirable if the Bill were to make express provision so that a compensation scheme would specify a deadline after which no payments would be made. I have accepted the Committee’s view on that and propose that the Bill be amended by the provision of a new subsection (4) to clause 5.
The amendment does not affect the substance of the Bill. It is a clarification of the terms to be included in any scheme that the Department may make.

Ms Jane Morrice: I call the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr Savage.

Mr George Savage: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr Paul Berry: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given the reason why the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development was unable to attend, will the Minister withdraw her remarks?

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member gave the reasons why the Chairperson was not available in the Chamber. The point of order you raise is not a point of order. There is no Standing Order referring to that. I call Mr Savage.

Mr Maurice Morrow: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Did the Minister not refer to the Chairperson carrying out stunts, and she knows perfectly well that that is not the case? Would she now have the good grace to withdraw the scurrilous remarks she made?

Ms Brid Rodgers: In my view the reason is academic; as Chairperson of the Committee, he should be here to respond to the amendment.

Ms Jane Morrice: I move to — [Interruption].

Mr Maurice Morrow: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that the Chairperson was carrying out "stunts". She can twist and turn all she wants, but we are simply asking her to withdraw those remarks. He is not participating in stunts; he is at another meeting.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. That is not a point of order. It refers to remarks that were made. We will look at Hansard and come to a conclusion on that.

Mr George Savage: I thank the Minister and her Department for tabling the amendment. It is what Committee members wanted.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the amendment. Every member of the Committee agreed that it was necessary for animal welfare, and to ensure that no one could start a business anywhere in the North to get compensation after the Bill was enacted.
Amendment agreed to.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Long title agreed to.

Ms Jane Morrice: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Company Directors Disqualification Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Ms Jane Morrice: No amendments to the Bill have been tabled. The Further Consideration Stage of the Company Directors Disqualification Bill is, therefore, concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Children (Leaving Care) Bill: Final Stage

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Molaim go ritear an Bille Páistí (ag Fágáil Cúraim) anois. I beg to move
That the Children (Leaving Care) Bill (NIA 5/01) do now pass.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Children (Leaving Care) Bill (NIA 5/01) do now pass.

Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

Dr Joe Hendron: I beg to move
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 22 November 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill (NIA 22/01).
The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety is examining the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill. It is a significant piece of legislation and runs to over 50 clauses. The Committee warmly welcomes the Bill, which contains important provisions to enhance the protection of children and vulnerable adults. The Bill breaks new ground, and it is important that the Committee be able to devote sufficient time to scrutiny of its provisions, and to discussion of the impact it will have on organisations working with children.
Related issues include whistle-blowing and the making of disqualification orders for persons deemed to be a risk to children. In order to be satisfied that the Bill can fully deliver on its intent and provide safeguards for vulnerable young adults, the Committee asks that the Committee Stage of the Bill be extended to Friday 22 November 2002.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 22 November 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill (NIA 22/01).

Agriculture (Amendment) Bill: First Stage

Mr Billy Armstrong: I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill (NIA 10/02) to include horses within the definition of agricultural animals; and for connected purposes.

Mr John Kelly: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does that include donkeys or just horses?

Ms Jane Morrice: That is not a point of order: that is information, which you had the opportunity, I assume, of seeking from the Member.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Fire Services (Appointments and Promotion) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002: Prayer of Annulment

Mr Paul Berry: I beg to move
That the Fire Services (Appointments and Promotion) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 283/2002) be annulled.
Members of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety had differing views on the motion: some were for and against it; some were for and against the Regulations. My Colleague, Iris Robinson, Committee members from the Ulster Unionist Party and I have made our concerns clear. The Fire Services (Appointments and Promotion) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 were brought before the Committee in July, just before recess, and several members raised concerns at its motive, particularly at this time.
Concerns were raised about the equivalent experience and qualifications required, article 39 of the European Community Treaty, and the need to maintain the morale of firefighters. Concerns were raised by the Fire Brigades Union about the poor consultation on the Regulations put before the Committee. Some Committee members, including myself, asked if this was a political move by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
The Regulations provide for equivalent "experience" and "qualifications". Members are aware of the many tragic incidents that have taken place in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years and more. One thing that has held Northern Ireland together is the experience and dedication of our firefighters across the board — regardless of religion. We had, and still have, conscientious, eager and professional firefighters.
There are questions about the definition of equivalent "experience" and "qualifications": there is no clear definition in the Regulations. The legal teams of the world will tell us that it is not important to include a clear definition. However, the Fire Brigades Union, my Colleagues and I believe that this is important.
The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is throwing the responsibility for determining equivalent experience and qualifications to the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland selection panel. The Fire Authority has expressed several concerns about that — and I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will have noticed those in the press recently. The responsibility should not be left to the Fire Authority: there should be a clear definition of the equivalent experience and qualifications required in the Regulations.
Members may ask what the equivalent experience and qualifications are. We were told that Her Majesty’s Inspectorate would be able to provide guidance, but that will not be the case. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate will not be able to provide guidance to the panel as stated by the Department in its letter to the members of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety. The Fire Authority for Northern Ireland has been advised of this, and I would like that clarified today.
No other profession in the country would permit outside entry at its highest level. It is like asking a road engineer to become head of brain surgery at the Royal Victoria Hospital: it is complete nonsense. Northern Ireland must have someone who is able for the job. In Northern Ireland there are men and women from each side of the community who would be capable of doing the job.
Article 39 of the European Community Treaty brings in the issue of the Good Friday Agreement. The post of Chief Fire Officer was previously designated as a public service post, so why is that not the case now? It is a public service post in other brigades in the United Kingdom, including London. Departmental officials told the Committee that the situation in Northern Ireland had changed since the Good Friday Agreement, and that therefore this exception was no longer justified. That is a joke, because we have seen how the Belfast Agreement has delivered anarchy, not just over the past couple of days in the Building but throughout the community. Article 39 must remain for security reasons.
Over the six years since the signing of the agreement, the level of violence has increased dramatically. There are more bomb attacks than ever, blast bombs have been fired at firefighters, there are daily attacks on firefighters, there is regular terrorist targeting and training, there was the incident in Colombia with FARC, and there are many other issues.
The Chief Fire Officer must remain in close contact with the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding in talks on many sensitive security matters. It is a delicate post. It is a crime to throw away the article and open the gate to anyone outside the UK. A person from Northern Ireland would be best for the post, given the security problems and the trouble on the streets.
It is ironic that the Regulation has not been introduced anywhere else in the UK. Departmental officials told the Committee that other Departments in the UK are examining this, but that is all they are doing. This is a political move by the Sinn Féin/IRA Minister.
Firefighters’ morale is low as a result of attacks on them across the country. Career development and progression is greatly promoted in the Fire Service in Northern Ireland. Many male and female firefighters have worked through the ranks to senior positions, hoping that some day they will gain further promotion, but, if the Regulation is enacted, it will send out a message from the Department that no firefighters in Northern Ireland are capable of doing the job.
People have said that it does not stop anyone in Northern Ireland from applying for the position, but the fact that the Minister is trying to move the Regulation to open up the position of Chief Fire Officer to anyone outside the UK is a clear political sign. It is also a sign that she thinks no one in Northern Ireland is capable of filling the position.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Member appreciate that it is important to employ someone who is capable of interacting directly with the Chief Constable in this role? The Member has already identified that, but the Minister does not interact with the Chief Constable except for guldering at his officers on the steps of Stormont. It would be useful to have someone who could interact appropriately with the Chief Fire Officer, especially in the event of a strike. Vehicles have been set aside for the police to do the job if that happens. It is, therefore, essential to have the right people interacting with the police at the right time.

Mr Paul Berry: I wholeheartedly agree. The way the Minister shouted at members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland on Friday was a disgrace. The Health Minister’s attitude was despicable, and she showed her true colours in the way she acted against the forces of the law.
I agree wholeheartedly that the Chief Fire Officer of Northern Ireland must be able to deal directly with the Chief Constable. It is clear that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety does not take the opportunity to do that. Given the current possibility of a strike, we need someone who can interact closely with the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding. Therefore, I fully understand Mr Paisley Jnr’s remarks.
Concern was raised by the Fire Brigades Union. When the issue came to the Committee’s attention, I spoke to representatives of the union, and I was astonished to learn that they knew nothing about the Regulation. Members might ask why the union needed to know about the Regulation. The bottom line is that the Fire Brigades Union, which represents 95% of all firefighters in Northern Ireland, has the right to know about any changes. The decent thing to do would be to let them know that the senior post of Chief Fire Officer was open for appointment.
When the Regulation and the Department’s two amendments appeared, I asked the officials whether the Fire Brigades Union had been consulted; it had not. It was consulted after the Regulation was drafted in the middle of July. However, its representatives first found out about the Regulation when I approached them. I find it grossly insulting that the Minister and her Department did not consult the union sooner rather than later.
We must ask whether the Regulation is a political move. I have no doubt that the smokescreen of the Minister, her Department and others will be to say that they have received legal advice, and that retaining the existing qualifications required for Chief Fire Officer could have legal implications. The Committee received weak legal advice. The advice, which was consistent with that given to the Department, was that
"the retention of the existing qualification requirements for the Chief fire officer probably cannot be justified, particularly in light of a relaxation of nationality requirements for public service posts".
This does not make it clear that retaining the existing qualifications would be illegal. The word "probably" cannot be justified. As far as I am concerned, the legal argument is flawed; it is a smokescreen raised by the Department and the Minister. The Minister’s ultimate goal is political. This is a political move against the UK Fire Service, but she is going through the back door. Other members of the Committee and I do not buy it.
The Department keeps telling us that it is examining it, and that other Departments are examining it. Nowhere else in the United Kingdom has this taken place; only in Northern Ireland. We must zoom in to see the real problem, which is that we have a Sinn Féin/IRA Minister in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety who is prepared to promote such issues for purely political reasons. She is prepared to forget about the morale of the firefighters and everything else in order to push this Regulation through for political reasons.
There are people in Northern Ireland and in the Northern Ireland Fire Service who are capable of filling that senior position, no matter what religion they are. We have had people capable of this position in the past, and if it were opened up again, we would have capable candidates today.
I am concerned that disciplinary action was taken against the two acting Chief Fire Officers.
Is it a move to discredit the two gentlemen already in post? I should like the Department to clarify that today, for it stinks right through the whole system. There could be political moves on the part of the Minister to push this through.
I trust that the whole House will back us, and our motion, today. I also hope that it has listened clearly to the Fire Brigades Union, which represents 95% of firefighters in Northern Ireland. If we say that we are ignoring their views and do not agree with them, their morale will be very much affected.
Many men and women have enjoyed career development and progression through the Northern Ireland Fire Service. Are they to be told that they might not have the opportunity because the Minister intends to open the floodgates and let anyone across the world apply for the position? In the Northern Ireland Fire Service we have men and women capable of taking on that position.
Today the Department must throw away the Regulations and forget about the flaws and the legalities of the whole thing; that is a smokescreen. The Minister and her Department must look to the Northern Ireland Fire Service for the position of Chief Fire Officer. We have the men and women who are capable of it.

Dr Joe Hendron: Like Mr Berry, I have nothing but the most profound respect for all the firefighters in Northern Ireland. Having been on the front line in West Belfast all down the years, I have seen their courage and their actions.
I should like to take this opportunity to explain the Committee’s support for this Statutory Rule. As Mr Berry explained, the Committee’s decision was not unanimous; it was carried by a majority of six to two. Nonetheless, I am confident that the decision was well-informed, balanced and took full account of the issues raised.
The Committee’s duty was to scrutinise the Statutory Rule and establish whether it was sound regarding its intent. The Committee has delegated responsibility for its technical scrutiny to the Examiner of Statutory Rules, whose report I shall return to later. The aim of this Statutory Rule is to widen the pool of qualified potential applicants for the post of Chief Fire Officer for Northern Ireland beyond the United Kingdom in order to attract the strongest possible field of candidates. That is based — in my view, quite rightly — on the promotion of equality and is consistent with the freedom of movement of workers across the European Community. As the substantive post of Chief Fire Officer has been vacant for some time, it is important that this legislation be progressed as soon as possible.
In the light of concerns raised by the Fire Brigades Union, the Health Committee spent a considerable time considering the proposed legislation. It took evidence from departmental officials and representatives from the Fire Brigades Union. The union representatives voiced concern that the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland had not consulted it on the proposal.
Although the Department says that consultation took place, it appears that that was only when the proposal for the Statutory Rule had reached an advanced stage. That is regrettable and is not consistent with open and transparent government. I trust that lessons will be learnt. Had the Fire Brigades Union been consulted from the outset, the Department might have had more success in convincing its leadership of the merits of the proposed change and allayed fears about any possible dilution of qualification standards in respect of the post of Chief Fire Officer.
Turning to the Statutory Rule, I wish to deal first with the legal implications of retaining the existing qualification requirements for Chief Fire Officer. The Health Committee sought the advice of the Assembly’s legal services regarding the Regulation’s aims. The advice, which was consistent with that given to the Department, was that
"the retention of the existing qualification requirements for Chief Fire Officer probably cannot be justified, particularly in light of a relaxation of nationality requirements for public service posts."
The current Regulations could be seen as discriminating against those who are not UK nationals by unnecessarily reserving posts to that group.
The Treaty on European Union 1997 provides for the free movement of workers without discrimination on the grounds of nationality. While Governments may classify certain public services as exempt from the freedom of movement legislation due to their "state sensitive" nature, I understand that the Department does not consider such an exclusion to be justified with respect to the post of Chief Fire Officer. That took account of the fact that few of the equivalent posts in Great Britain have such an exemption. It also took account of the situation in Northern Ireland following the Good Friday Agreement. I am not aware of any counter legal arguments having been made in support of the existing arrangements. The Minister may wish to confirm that I have interpreted the Department’s views correctly on both of those matters.
In its evidence to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Fire Brigades Union underlined the importance of ensuring that the Chief Fire Officer has the ability and necessary training to do the job properly and effectively. Clearly, the Chief Fire Officer must command the respect of the entire firefighting force if there is not to be a serious loss of morale among members. To that end, I want to address the concerns raised by the Fire Brigades Union with regard to the proposed legislative changes.
The union voiced concern that the proposals would, in effect, introduce a two-tier system and undermine the existing arrangements whereby senior officers aspiring to the highest positions of command must have completed the highly respected brigade command course. As a consequence of those concerns, the Committee wrote to the Department to seek clarification on what was meant by extending eligibility for the post to potential candidates who "possess equivalent qualifications" to a person who had completed the brigade command course. The Department took account of the concerns raised, and it amended the draft Statutory Rule to include the requirement for non-UK nationals to have "experience" and "qualifications" that are equivalent to those that are already in place in the Northern Ireland Fire Service. The Department has advised that judgements on the equivalence of qualifications and experience would rest with the Fire Authority on the advice of Her Majesty’s Inspector of Fire Services.
Committee members had concerns that the word "equivalent", for the purposes of experience and qualifications, was not defined. I understand that the Department’s legal services have confirmed that it would not be advisable to prescribe in law the equivalence of qualifications and experience in respect of the requirements for the post, as that would result in the need for future sporadic amendments to the legislation. The Committee has no reason to doubt the integrity of the Fire Authority, relying on the professionalism and expertise of Her Majesty’s Inspector of Fire Services, to rigorously apply the new arrangements fairly. I believe that that will ensure that there is no dilution of the high standards that are currently required for the post of Chief Fire Officer.
I disagree with the argument made by some that the proposed legislation is, in some way, a slight on the capabilities of local senior fire officers. The high calibre of Northern Ireland’s fire officers is beyond dispute. Their selfless bravery and professionalism, which I referred to earlier, particularly in protecting lives and property during the 30 years of the troubles, is unquestionable. While the legislation serves to widen the pool of potential quality candidates, it does not in any way preclude any candidates from Northern Ireland or Great Britain from applying for, or being successful in, the competition. Of course, any unsuccessful candidate would have the facility to appeal to the Equality Commission if they felt that they had been unfairly treated. I am confident of the ability of local senior officers to demonstrate their qualification for the job in any such competition.
In his technical scrutiny of the Regulations, the Examiner of Statutory Rules made three comments. First, there was a breach of the 21-day rule, and the Department was remiss in not following established practice in laying Regulations. Secondly, it would have been more logical to insert regulation 4(1)(a) after regulation 4(2), and, thirdly, it would have been better to have expressly stated in the Regulations that it was for the Fire Authority to decide what experience and qualifications were equivalent to those set out in regulation 4(1)(a).
The Committee will consider the Examiner of Statutory Rules’ report at its next meeting. However, the examiner has confirmed that his comments are relatively minor points that do not invalidate the Regulations. He has brought his comments to the Department’s attention and has suggested that it may wish to bring forward an amendment in due course to tidy up the Regulations. The Committee will make its views known to the Minister on how this Statutory Rule has been handled. Although there are lessons to be learned for the future, they do not invalidate the rationale of the Regulations.
On behalf of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, I urge Members to support this progressive piece of legislation. It is consistent with the principle of freedom of movement for workers within the European Community and aims to ensure that the Northern Ireland Fire Service has the best possible pool of potential quality applicants for the post of Chief Fire Officer.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In proposing the motion, Assembly Member Berry talked about politicisation and mentioned the Minister and Sinn Féin/IRA, yet the entire thrust of his address was to politicise the Fire Service in this part of Ireland. The motion is not about the competence of the Fire Service. As other Members have said, no one has in any way attempted to criticise, diminish or belittle the Fire Service; neither is the amendment an attempt to prevent internal promotions within the North of Ireland Fire Service.
The amendment does not propose that no one from within the North of Ireland Fire Service can become Chief Fire Officer. It is about equality of opportunity. As Joe Hendron said, it is about casting the net wider so that those from America, Germany, France, Italy or the other part of Ireland can apply for that job. All the amendment does is extend that notion of equality. It does not in any way disbar, disallow or prevent promotion from within the North of Ireland Fire Service.
Earlier today we were discussing leaked information, yet Mr Berry has been leaking information from the Health Service to the Fire Brigade unbeknownst to any member of the Health Committee. Consistently — [Interruption].

Mr Paul Berry: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is cheap that the Member is talking about leaked documents, given what happened on Friday. Let him provide the evidence. He made an allegation, and I want him to withdraw it.

Mr John Kelly: The Member said it in his speech. Apart from anything else — [Interruption].

Mr Paul Berry: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I said that I had raised this issue with the Fire Brigades Union in July — not in September or October, but in July. It was legitimate of me to raise the issue. It was during consultation. As a Health Committee member, I asked members of the Fire Brigades Union whether they were aware of the Regulations, which they were not. Where is the crime in that? Does the Member not want the Fire Brigades Union to be consulted?

Ms Jane Morrice: Thank you for that clarification. I assume that the matter has been clarified for Mr Kelly.

Mr John Kelly: Clarification will wait for another day. We can only go on what we hear and what we are told.
We have spoken to firemen about what they are about. We have explained to the Fire Brigades Union the content, impact and import of the amendment. The entire objective of the motion seems to be to prohibit and confine; to create a closed shop in the North of Ireland Fire Service where no one outside the North of Ireland Fire Service ought to be promoted to Chief Fire Officer. That cannot be right — there is no openness, transparency or accountability in any sense of the word.
In opposing the motion, the Department is clear in its use of words. The amendment allows a person to apply if he or she
"has acquired experience and qualification equivalent"
to the original requirements. That fits in with what the Fire Service has said. There may be merit in ensuring that the Regulations to ensure such equivalence are comprehensive and robust. However, there is nothing in the wording of the amendment that could be objected to by anyone concerned with equality of opportunity and ensuring that the best person for the job gets the job, irrespective of where he comes from. I oppose the motion.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I support Mr Berry’s prayer of annulment. I agree with him, even if only in this matter. Can Members listen to what I have to say before they comment? We have recently spoken in the House about attacks on firemen and women by mindless thugs on our streets. Most of us have supported the firefighters’ battle to achieve a new wage structure to replace the existing 25-year-old one. The firefighters regard the proposed appointment and promotion Regulations as yet another attack on them. Those Regulations are not being considered for the other 57 of the 58 fire brigades in the United Kingdom. The existing Regulations are currently protected by the Treaty of Rome. However, it is argued that they must be altered here to achieve equality in accordance with the so-called needs of Northern Ireland. Such a change is not necessary at this stage and would also be extremely dangerous because it would open up senior positions to people in the European community who might not necessarily have the practical experience and who may have some communication shortcomings. In the heat of an emergency, a split-second delay could prove fatal. I hope that people understand my practical concerns.
In one area of the Republic, under Regulations similar to those proposed, a chief fire officer who had absolutely no background in or experience of actual firefighting was recently appointed. Add possible communication problems to that and there could be trouble.

Mr John Kelly: Does the Member agree that the appointment of a chief fire officer in the other part of Ireland was conducted in conformity with the Regulations that apply there and that the Regulations that apply here would prohibit someone who did not have the equivalent qualification — in other words, the training that is required in the Fire Brigade in Britain or elsewhere?

Mrs Eileen Bell: I am not exactly sure what the Member means. I am sure that the person who was recruited in the South was recruited under the South’s Regulations. This is a matter of United Kingdom Regulations and the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade, which is still part of the United Kingdom, whether we like it or not. Firefighters in Northern Ireland regard the proposal as an insult because they think they are being treated differently from other firefighters in the UK. They fear that it would de-professionalise their service and open it up to non-experienced personnel, thus placing them at even greater risk than they already are.
As I said, I am making practical comments at this stage. No one in this Chamber can be in any doubt that I and my party have always supported the equality legislation.

A Member: Selectively.

Mrs Eileen Bell: Our support is not selective. We support equality legislation. However, because something is, in general, desirable and right, it does not mean that every application of it has been desirable or right. We have complained about the process of the equality legislation — there have been many delays. All of a sudden, however, this idea turns up. It should be considered, but only on a UK-wide basis. At this stage no change should be made that would be to the detriment of any firefighter.

Mr John Kelly: What changes should be made?

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mrs Eileen Bell: The proposed change is not for good, practical reasons. Such changes should only be made when the equality legislation for the whole of the UK is examined. That should be the case until Northern Ireland is put into the South. I support the motion.

Ms Jane Morrice: Given the number of Members who wish to speak in the debate and the time that we have made available, I ask the remaining Members to limit their contributions to five minutes.

Mrs Iris Robinson: I support the prayer of annulment motion brought by my Colleague on the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Mr Berry. The position of Chief Fire Officer in Northern Ireland is a crucial post and, as some Members intimated earlier, the person in post must interact with the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding.
Morale among our firefighters is very low, following their high-profile campaign for better pay and a greater recognition of their role in society. Meanwhile, frequent mindless attacks on them continue across the Province. Firefighters take their lead from their superiors, so it is important that those who represent them, the face of firefighters, have their utmost respect and support. As the Fire Brigades Union representatives informed the Committee, firefighters may live or die on vital command and control decisions taken by senior officers.
I oppose discrimination, wherever it is found and from whatever source it emanates. The person most suitable — the best-trained, the most qualified and the one most likely to do the job best — should always get the job. That is why I so deplore the discrimination that exists in policing. Young men and women can fail to become police officers, even though they know that they were better candidates than others who were chosen. That often means rejection from a career that the unsuccessful applicant has always had an ambition to pursue, perhaps even following in the footsteps of other family members.
I do not want to see discrimination in the Fire Service. I want the Chief Fire Officer to be the best person for the job. For that to be the case, he or she will require an intimate knowledge of Northern Ireland. As a result of our tragic history, heading an organisation such as the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade requires a familiarity with the Province’s geography and the cultural issues whose significance remains throughout our society. It is not as if we have a limited pool of potential candidates from whom to choose. Under current legislation, our Chief Fire Officer could be appointed from officers throughout the 59 UK fire brigades who have completed the brigade command course at Fire Service college. Does it not seem peculiar that the Sinn Féin Minister now wishes to change the legislation to allow for applications from outside the United Kingdom? It has been claimed that to maintain the current legislation would be unlawful. However, other legal advice rubbishes that supposition.
Why are the other 58 fire brigades in Great Britain not seeking amendments to their legislation? Is it any wonder that firefighters’ leaders fear that it is not about ability or equality of opportunity, but purely a political decision by a Minister pursuing an all-Ireland agenda.
The Fire Brigades Union also fears that political factors were behind the recent controversies surrounding the Fire Authority. Is it just coincidence that the only two Northern Ireland Fire Brigade officers who are in a position to apply for the Chief Fire Officer post have recently been made subject to disciplinary investigations?
In the Irish Republic, a two-tier entry system means that senior officers can possess little experience in command and control issues for large-scale incidents such as bomb scenes. For example, the chief fire officer in Wexford graduated in civil engineering in 1998 and worked as a building control officer for a consultancy firm until she was appointed assistant chief fire officer for Mayo.
Firefighters in Northern Ireland support the integrated personal development system promoted in the UK Fire Service, and, especially now, when pay and conditions are under discussion, it would be ridiculous for firefighters to do anything that might weaken their links with colleagues in Great Britain. As such, the appointment of a chief officer from outside the UK would run counter to the integrated personal development system. Firefighters wish to pursue that pathway of career progression and development, not to introduce a two-tier system. I support the motion.

Mr John Dallat: I am quite sure that the prayer of annulment was not inspired in heaven; it is more likely that it was enunciated in less hallowed places, among people who have a vested interest in ensuring the retention of restrictive work practices. Why else would anyone want to limit the potential pool of applicants for the post of Chief Fire Officer? I cannot think of another reason.
I am sure that Mr Berry will reassure the House that his intervention has not been influenced by anyone in the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade who may be a potential applicant to the vacant post. I raise that issue, not as an allegation of impropriety, but to enable Mr Berry to go on the record with a crystal clear assurance that he has had no contact with anyone who may benefit from the annulment of the Regulations, which enable — [Interruption].

Mr Paul Berry: I thank the Member for giving way. I can say honestly in the House that no one, including the acting Chief Fire Officers, has consulted me about the issue. I have had discussions about the positions with the Fire Brigades Union but, I stress, never with an acting Chief Fire Officer.

Mr John Dallat: I raised the issue to give Mr Berry the opportunity to go on record and state that he has not been influenced in any way and because I know that, in the past, he has tabled leading questions relating to the Fire Service, which I felt at the time were inspired by personal contact. However, I have no proof.
There are serious issues relating to the future development and reform of the Fire Service, and, although there has been a tendency to put all the blame on the beleaguered Fire Authority, there are real concerns about the ability of some people in the Fire Brigade’s management team. I say that because many of the recommendations made by the Public Accounts Committee have not been implemented and, in some cases, have been obstructed.
In such circumstances, I suggest that a new broom is needed to clean out everything that is wrong in the Fire Service. However, in saying that, I do not take away from the sterling work of firefighters in the past 30 years. I do not want anyone to confuse the two issues.
To reimpose restrictive practices would not be in the interest of genuine reform, but would be construed as either politically motivated to prevent applications from the Republic or a clumsy attempt to enhance the prospects of existing personnel. Of course, such practice is contrary to the ethos of the EU, of which we are a member.
I shall conclude, because I know that you are anxious, Madam Deputy Speaker, that speeches be short. Do we potentially tell a firefighter or a fire chief who served in New York on 11 September and who wanted to apply for a job in the North that they are unqualified? I should think not. Mr Berry, in his single transferable speech, told the House that his little prayer was not inspired by the angels but by other factors. However, those factors have nothing to do with improving the Fire Service and more to do with retaining the closed shop.

Mr Jim Shannon: I support the motion that my Colleague Mr Berry moved and that was ably spoken to by another Colleague, Mrs Robinson.
I must put on record my concern about the Minister’s decision to consider this matter. In common with many others, I have no doubt that that decision is purely politically motivated. Members have said that they wish to ensure that there is equal opportunity of employment. That is true; however, if we follow the procedures and changes that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has proposed, that equality will not follow. For example, an officer in the Irish Army who transfers into the Irish Fire Service, and who may be insufficiently qualified to hold that position, can then apply for a position in the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade. That is wrong; in order to obtain a post in Northern Ireland people here must be qualified, have abilities, have passed exams and have done all that is necessary. For someone down there to get in through the back door is unfair and must be opposed.
The issue has been discussed in many councils, and my own, Ards Borough Council, has put on record its opposition to the proposed changes. Many other councils have done likewise, and, as a result, the momentum against the proposals has grown across the Province.
The Minister’s proposals discriminate directly against those in Northern Ireland who wish to become Chief Fire Officer. As long as that continues, she and her Department stand condemned over fair play and fair employment. It is only fair that the same rules apply to everyone who must go through our selection procedure.
The changes also attack the firefighters’ morale. My Colleagues have mentioned that attack on their morale. It is clear that many firefighters feel let down and undermined and that the proposed change in legislation tramples on their motivation and role.
If this were happening in any other sphere of employment, cries about fair play, fair employment and discrimination would be heard from unions and elected representatives. Yet that is what we face in this instance. It is ridiculous that the Minister will be allowed to make changes and manipulate employment guidelines to suit a political agenda. Let us look at the issue and give the job to the best candidate. Let us ensure that everyone has the same opportunity to apply for that job, and let us not allow the Minister and her Department to ride roughshod over the feelings of Members, those in the Fire Brigades Union and all those who wish to apply for the job but who are unable to do so.
I support my Colleague’s motion, and I ask Members to support him. We cannot allow manipulation to occur for political motivations in the Chamber. It is political engineering, which is unacceptable and cannot be supported.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Uasal Berry as an rún seo a thabhairt os comhair an Tionóil. Tá sé tábhachtach go dtabharfaí faoi na ceisteanna a ardaíonn an rún seo agus go dtuigeann Comhaltaí an fáth ar leagadh síos an Rialachán leasaithe agus na himpleachtaí a ghabhann leis ó thaobh comhionannais agus dlí de.
I dtús báire, bhí an leasú seo riachtanach lena chinntiú go mbeidh gach ceapachán feasta cothrom agus cóir faoi reachtaíocht an Aontais Eorpaigh. Cinnteoidh an leasú fosta go mbeimid in ann na hiarratasóirí is fearr a fháil do phost an Phríomhoifigh Dóiteáin tríd an phost a oscailt don réimse is leithne iarratasóirí san Eoraip agus níos faide ó bhaile. Tríd sin a dhéanamh, cinntíonn an leasú fosta go gcoimeádfar an t-ardchaighdeán taithí agus cáilíochtaí atá riachtanach don phost.
D’fhéach an dréachtleasú a chuir mé faoi chomhairliúchán i mí Iúil leis sin a bhaint amach trí éileamh ar iarratasóirí cáilíochtaí a bheith acu atá inchurtha leo sin atá riachtanach don phost faoi láthair. Mar fhreagra ar na hábhair imní a léirigh Ceardchumann na mBriogáidí Dóiteáin, áfach, éilíonn an leasú go mbeadh taithí fosta ag iarratasóirí ar dhóiteáin a smachtú sular féidir glacadh leo i gcomhair agallaimh.
I thank Mr Berry for bringing the motion to the Assembly. It is important that the issues raised be addressed and that Members understand why the amending Regulations were laid, along with its implications for equality and legality. Regardless of the fact that I hold a different opinion, it is important to have the opportunity to debate the matter.
First, the Regulations is necessary to ensure that any appointment made is fair and equitable under EU legislation. The Regulations will also ensure that we can attract the best possible candidates for the position of Chief Fire Officer by opening up the post to a wide range of applicants in Europe and further afield. The Regulations will also ensure that the high standard of experience and qualifications required for the post are maintained. The draft Regulations, which I circulated for consultation in July, sought to achieve that by calling for candidates to have qualifications equivalent to those currently required.
In response to concerns expressed by the Fire Brigades Union, however, the Regulations now before the Assembly also requires candidates to have equivalent firefighting experience before they can be accepted for interview. Therefore the Regulations include a new clause that allows candidates from anywhere in the world, with equivalent qualifications and experience, to apply.
It is important to note the nature of equivalence. The word "equivalent" means equal in value; having the same meaning or result; tantamount to or corresponding. Any applicant who does not have the necessary experience and qualifications will not be called to interview. Critics of the clause continue to claim that it will, somehow, dilute the stringent standards that exist. How can that be the case, if candidates are expected to have the same qualifications and fire service experience? To suggest that an engineer or a building inspector without these qualifications and senior level firefighting experience could be appointed as a result of the legislation is simply nonsense. They would not even be interviewed.
The example of the appointment of a female Chief Fire Officer in Wexford is quoted again and again and was mentioned in the House today. It is used so often to argue against the Regulations that it must call into question the critics’ other arguments against the Regulations. Is it concern over standards that motivates them, or is it fear that a woman could apply, and be accepted for, such a post?
It is important for Members to understand that the Regulations does not affect, in any way, applications from serving members in brigades in GB or here, provided they have the appropriate qualifications and experience. All it does is extend the field to other suitable candidates in exactly the same way as the field is extended for all the other important jobs Members may see advertised in newspapers.
Apart from the sensible and practical reasons for endorsing the Regulations, there are also compelling reasons to do with equality. Under European legislation, Governments are required to facilitate the free movement of workers in the European Union. That means that the existing legislation discriminates against qualified candidates from the rest of Europe and elsewhere. Such indirect discrimination leaves the appointment process open to legal challenge. I have been advised that any such challenges would be successful. It has been mistakenly reported that the post of Chief Fire Officer is automatically exempted from the requirement to be open to other EU citizens. This is not the case. Such an exemption cannot be justified here. It is worth noting that it does not apply to the post of Chief Constable of the PSNI. The Chief Fire Officer’s post, under article 39(4) of the EEC Treaty, was previously designated as a public service post, which meant that non-UK nationals were prevented from applying for it. On the basis of legal advice, the Department no longer considers that the post justifies a public service exemption.
Few fire brigades in GB attract this exemption, and the situation here, following the Good Friday Agreement, does not justify the exemption. Unless it was held that there were good reasons for not allowing European nationals from outside GB and here to apply for public posts, this public service exemption, which blocks such nationals from applying, could be judged by the courts to amount to discrimination.
In answer to Paul Berry’s argument that the person holding this post will need to interact with the Chief Constable of the PSNI, I must point out that the exemption does not apply to the Chief Constable.
The views of members of the Fire Brigades Union were sought and received during consultation, and the original proposed Regulations were amended to specify that equivalent qualifications and experience would be required, consistent with some of the concerns that they raised. During the consultation, the Committee found out about certain matters before the Fire Brigades Union, because it consistently sought and received early sight of departmental proposals.
With regard to the proposed Regulations, the Department wrote to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety on 1 July. That was followed by formal consultation on 5 July, with a range of organisations including the Fire Brigades Union, the Retained Firefighters Union, the Fire Authority and district councils. The Fire Brigades Union responded to the consultation letter of 5 July on 20 August. Following receipt of the response, the proposals were amended in line with some of the concerns that it expressed.
Questions have been raised about the morale of firefighters here, and the suggestion has been made that that could be affected by the proposed Regulations. It is a nonsense to suggest that someone from elsewhere, without relevant firefighting experience, would be eligible for the post. To suggest that the Regulations allows amateurs to apply is, by definition, an insult to existing firefighters. Equivalent qualifications and experience are required. Morale could be damaged to a far greater extent by the suggestion that people here would be able to compete only if no one else were allowed onto the field.
The Regulations in no way reflect on the suitability of potential candidates for this post — here or elsewhere. There have been made because of practical, legal and equality issues. Under these Regulations, qualified officers in the Fire Brigade remain eligible to apply, as can suitably qualified officers from fire brigades in Great Britain.
We decided not to wait until such changes had been made elsewhere, because we all recognise the importance of this post being filled substantively, as a matter of urgency. The post is about to be advertised, and therefore we cannot wait for changes to be made elsewhere before we act. Were we to do so, our legal advice is that we would be open to legal challenge.

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Minister draw her remarks to a close?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: There are a couple of technical issues that Dr Hendron raised with regard to the Regulations.

Ms Jane Morrice: Those must be dealt with speedily as you have only a few seconds.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Given that I have run out of time, I will write to Dr Hendron about those matters.

Mr Paul Berry: I have listened with intent to several Members who spoke during the debate. I listened to the Chairperson of the Health Committee, Joe Hendron, who said that it is important that we widen the pool. As far as I am concerned, our pool is wide enough at present. We have capable men and women in Northern Ireland. Dr Hendron’s Colleague John Dallat can shake his head at me, but I believe that we have the men and women in Northern Ireland who are able to carry out the position of Chief Fire Officer, even if Dr Hendron disagrees.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Chairperson of the Health Committee that the post must be filled. I call on the Department to get its finger out, get rid of these Regulations and appoint a Chief Fire Officer to Northern Ireland, given the circumstances that we have.

Mr John Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Paul Berry: I do not give way to Members of Sinn Féin/IRA. [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Paul Berry: The Democratic Unionist Party is fit enough to deal with those people.
We have heard much about the legal implications. Let us consider the wording. The legal advisers returned to the Department and said that the word "probably" cannot be justified. If that is the legal advice, that person should get the sack. That is not clear guidance for us as a Committee.
We have also heard people say that this annulment will discriminate against people across the world, in places such as Germany. Anyone who says that we are going to discriminate is a hypocrite. These Regulations are discriminating against the Northern Ireland firefighters who have gone through the ranks — people who have developed their career and progressed through the Fire Service for 30 years. If the Regulations were to go ahead, those people would be clearly discriminated against. The Minister’s attempt to have those enacted is once again a political move.
We then had the words of John Kelly — what a courageous man. He said that he would question the motives behind the motion. He said that the motion’s object was political. Who is political today? The Minister of Health and Mr red-faced John Kelly. He went on to talk about leaked documents. Sinn Féin/IRA’s spokespersons are the last people who should be talking about leaked documents in the Assembly today, given the circumstances of Friday past.
We move on to the issue of equivalency, qualifications and the firefighters’ morale. That is being basically laughed off. Forget about the morale of the firefighters, even though the Fire Brigades Union has consulted with us all and made it known that it is against these Regulations because they basically say to the men and women of the Northern Ireland Fire Service, no matter what their religion, that there is no one capable within its ranks.
I thank Eileen Bell and Iris Robinson. Iris Robinson said that the Chief Fire Officer must be aware of the geography and culture of Northern Ireland. We are aware that the Minister of Health will not be in close consultation with the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding (GOC) for her own political reasons. Over the past 30 years, we have been aware of Sinn Féin/IRA’s view of the police. It has been in close contact with the police, because it has pointed the gun at them and has murdered many police officers across the streets of Northern Ireland. It is clear that it is not going to consult closely with them.
But we need a Chief Fire Officer who is prepared, capable and aware of the geography of Northern Ireland. While the Minister will not consult with the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, especially after all her screaming in the corridors of this Building on Friday, we need a man or woman capable of taking on this position.

Mr Derek Hussey: I am sure that Mr Berry would agree with me that those people from all over the world who are interested in serving the community of Northern Ireland are welcome to come along and join the Northern Ireland Fire Service and work their way up to a position where they can apply for the post.

Mr Paul Berry: I agree wholeheartedly with my Colleague Mr Hussey.
The only part of the Minister’s comments worth listening to was her disgraceful comment that we are trying to discriminate against women. While the Minister for Health, who is a woman, has done a bad job in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, that does not mean that any other woman who applies to be the Chief Fire Officer would fail. It is clear that the Minister of Health has failed in her Department, and I trust that she will also fail today. I trust that the annulment will be accepted.
The consultation in relation to this has been disgraceful, as shown by the concerns of the Fire Brigades Union. It will affect the morale of the Northern Ireland firefighters. This is a clear political move by the Minister, Sinn Féin/ IRA and her Colleagues to get this through. [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.
Question put.
The Assembly divided: 
Ayes
Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, George Savage, Jim Shannon, David Trimble, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Sammy Wilson.
Noes
Alex Attwood, Michael Coyle, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Sean Farren, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Mick Murphy, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Fire Services (Appointments and Promotion) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 283/2002) be annulled.

Point of Order – Personal Statement

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a previous debate a savage attack was launched on me and on what I was doing when the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development was speaking. I make no apology in the House to anybody when I am representing those who have been bereaved, shot and maimed by the IRA. I was with the Minister of State with responsibility for security, on her invitation; she brought the meeting forward so that I might make an issue of those who have suffered so tragically in recent days in the constituency that I represent. To be told that that is a stunt is an insult to the memory of the people who have suffered.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. I am aware that the Member was interested in making a personal statement, but I advise him that he must seek permission from the Speaker to do so. That personal statement may or may not be made following the Speaker’s decision tomorrow morning.

Mr Gregory Campbell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given the comment made by the Minister of Agriculture and the representations made by Dr Paisley, will you offer the Minister the opportunity to withdraw her comments?

Ms Jane Morrice: This issue was discussed in the debate when the remarks were made, and the request was made for a personal statement. I have given Mr Paisley the opportunity to write to the Speaker so that his request can be considered. Both Members were given the opportunity to explain themselves during the debate, and I will leave it at that.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Madam Deputy Speaker.]

Maternity Provision in South Belfast

Prof Monica McWilliams: Clearly, there is as much concern about the needs of women who are giving birth — [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Members must leave the Chamber quietly.

Prof Monica McWilliams: There is a great deal of concern about maternity services in the Belfast area. I want to detail the times that women have been promised a centralised maternity hospital in Belfast. In 1996, ‘Seeking Balance’, which became known as the McKenna Report, was published, and that was followed in 1997 by the Donaldson Report.
In the minutes of a meeting of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board on 15 April 1999, Mr William McKee, chief executive of the Royal Victoria Hospital, said that he had been invited to draw up a business case in spring 1998 for a new hospital costing approximately £19 million. Then in 1999 — when there were maternity services at the Jubilee Maternity Hospital and the Royal Maternity Hospital — a consultation document was published, and on 27 January 2000 the Minister, making an announcement about the interim arrangements, said that people should be reassured that it would not be the final move.
On 27 January 2000, the Minister said:
"My firm intention is to have the new hospital in place in five to six years’ time."
In June 2001, the findings of a review group on acute hospitals were published. In November 2001, a specification for a new centralised maternity hospital was issued. In June 2002, ‘Developing Better Services’ was produced. It was the outcome of the review group’s findings on acute hospitals. A footnote on chapter 4 states:
"A new Centralised Maternity Service will be sited on either the Royal Group or the Belfast City Hospital site. Maternity services at the Mater Hospital should directly link to this Service."
By June 2002, the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety was informed that the specifications for the Royal Jubilee Maternity Hospital would be produced and then subjected to a 12-week consultation. From 1996 to June 2002, there have been consultation documents, requests for specifications and references in documents that reviewed maternity services in Northern Ireland, but we are still awaiting the outcome of the consultation. On and on it has gone, and the morale of those awaiting the outcome has been at such a level that some serious questions need to be asked. There is no mention in the draft Programme for Government of the new centralised maternity hospital in Belfast.
The physical inadequacies of the Jubilee Maternity Hospital and the Royal Maternity Hospital were highlighted as far back as 1996. The Jubilee Maternity Hospital has now gone, and there has been a merger between it and the Royal Maternity Hospital, but, undoubtedly, the physical inadequacies remain. Mr McKee, the chief executive of the Royal Group of Hospitals, pointed out at the time, when accepting a refurbishment cost of £1·8 million, that it would only be a temporary measure as he wanted a new centralised hospital.
In 1997, the Donaldson Report stated that the ultimate goal was to develop a new unified hospital with a regional perinatal centre. It stated that plans should be drawn up without delay, and an unambiguous timescale should be established for their implementation. Instead of that new build, two old hospitals have been combined into one hospital, and there have been two costly judicial reviews.
In the review of acute services, comments were made about what might happen to the maternity services in Lagan Valley Hospital and Downpatrick Maternity Hospital. In Downpatrick and Lagan Valley there are 1,556 births; in the Mater Infirmorum Hospital there are 1,059 births; and in the Royal and Jubilee Maternity Hospital there are 4,712 births. Therefore, there are potentially about 7,327 births — and there could be multiple births among those figures. That means that many people will be affected by this decision.
What would a women-centred service look like? Women should be asked what they want, and their levels of satisfaction with the current service should be tested. Does the service, as it stands, have the support of women who use it? Is it producing good clinical outcomes for mothers and babies?
In 1996, the cost in the reports was predicted to be between £10 million and £15 million. In 2002, the cost is estimated at an exorbitant £204 million, following an economic appraisal, which was carried out two years ago. Is there any commitment to provide resources for a new centralised maternity hospital, given the costs that have been highlighted in the appraisal, because, search as I may, I cannot find them? Yet we remain with questions on the safety of a small and rather old maternity hospital, which continues to be refurbished. I understand that the refurbishment is continuing with the installation of a pipe system for lab specimens.
For the majority of mothers, giving birth should be a normal experience that takes place without the need for complex medical treatment for either the mother or the child. It should be recognised that maternity services should be centred on women, who should be considered to be partners in the decision-making process. They should be offered fully informed choices about the type of care that they will receive, and every effort should be made to accommodate the choices that they make.
I welcome the review of acute hospitals’ proposals for midwife-led units. However, as I understand it, only one pilot unit will be created between the Downe and Lagan Valley Hospitals. That has implications for the new centralised maternity hospital. I understand that some women have the choice of case-led and midwife-led care, but we are left with a question about what we will do about over 7,000 births in the near future.
Midwives’ morale is low. Some of the staff of the Jubilee Hospital chose not to move to what is known as the Royal Jubilee Maternity Hospital, so the complement of midwives and neonatal specialists is down. Often the neonatal units are under so much pressure that they must find space for mothers and babies in other hospitals, and sometimes the mothers who are moved out must be moved back again. That raises serious questions about the care that they receive.
The number of mothers electing to give birth in the Royal Jubilee Maternity Hospital is decreasing. Those women are going elsewhere. In January 2001 six consultants in obstetrics and gynaecology wrote to me and to the Minister. That letter, which demonstrates their morale, said:
"In the interests of open and accountable government we call on the Health Committee to initiate an urgent enquiry into the Department of Health’s handling of the maternity issue. We call on the Minister to urgently tackle the issue of maternity and gynaecological services in Belfast and beyond and to initiate a fair, open and just consultation process."
Although that letter was written in January 2001, they are still waiting for an outcome.
There is great concern about all the services. When will the Minister decide on, and confirm funding for, a new centralised maternity hospital, given the promises that she made as long ago as 2000? Will she give priority to the provision of centralised maternity and gynaecological services in Belfast in the final Programme for Government, given that it was not even mentioned in the draft programme? How can Members support the Minister’s securing early funding and a commitment to a fast-track project timetable?
We have waited for more than six years for that project. A decision is to be made after the 12-week period of consultation, which will follow the submission of two specifications from the Belfast City and Royal Hospitals, which were promised at the start of the summer. I initiated this debate on the Adjournment because I was led to believe that consultation would begin at the start of this parliamentary session, but we are still waiting. It is extremely important, therefore, to know when the consultation document will be prepared to enable the project to begin.
What has the Minister done to secure funding — funding for this mainstream capital project does not seem to be mentioned in the Budget? Has the Minister visited the Royal Jubilee Maternity Hospital, and is she aware of the current conditions there? I understand that recent steam and sewerage problems on the site have given much cause for concern.
I have raised the issue of hygiene standards in the House before; the serious problems with the steam and sewerage systems on that site, which we know is old, are obviously dangerous.
How will the Minister ensure that the views of women who are using obstetric and gynaecological services are heard? When I say "a women-centred service", I mean that both for maternity and gynaecological services. We know the links that must be made with oncology, particularly in relation to urology. Those are women’s complaints, so any service must address them together rather than separately.
Has relevant UK evidence-based research on the location of maternity and gynaecological services, and the links between them, been taken into consideration? We are more than aware of links made with paediatric services. However, I continue to emphasise that, if we are to have a women-centred hospital like there are elsewhere in the United Kingdom, we must constantly prioritise the interaction between gynaecological services, which are lifelong, and those for maternity.
Finally, how will the Minister ensure that gynaecological services are given appropriate consideration in the current consultation? I say that because, when I first entered the House as a Member for South Belfast, I had high hopes that it would not be long before we found ourselves with a new, purpose-built hospital. It now looks like the Assembly is going down, but even had it lasted to March or April 2003, I would have left office without any purpose-built, centralised maternity hospital having been secured. I made that a priority when I was elected, and I sincerely hope that, as I go around the doors, I shall be able to tell my constituents that it has not been lost for ever.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I am grateful to Ms McWilliams for giving us an opportunity to consider this important matter. In fact, it is at least the third time in the life of the Assembly that the issue has been addressed. As Ms McWilliams rightly said, there is a long history to how we got to where we are now — the McKenna Report, the Donaldson Report and, more recently, the judicial review.
In a sense, we must start from where we are rather than where we might ideally wish to be. At the time of the earlier debate on the choice between the Royal Victoria Hospital and the Jubilee Maternity Hospital sites, a fear was expressed that a merger of the two units, especially at a single location at the Royal Victoria Hospital, would lead to a "shoehorning" into one inadequate building. As Ms McWilliams has pointed out, there is some evidence that that has become the case. The worrying aspect, as Ms McWilliams also said, is that what we were told would be an interim solution seems to be becoming an unsatisfactory medium-term or even relatively permanent solution, to the detriment of the well-being of mothers, mothers-to-be and their babies.
In their previous existences, both the Royal Victoria Hospital’s maternity unit and the Jubilee Maternity Hospital seemed to have a distinct ethos of care, especially in the style of treatment during delivery. One point that I should like to raise is that, in the management of the single combined unit, there should be an attempt to take what is best from the ethos of both sides of the merger. Admittedly, that will be a difficult task, but I hope that it will at least be attempted in order to maximise choice for mothers-to-be. Perhaps preserving, maintaining and improving choice should be an underlying theme in this debate. Of course, that is subject to the two other main considerations — cost and coverage for emergency cases. Much uncertainty has been generated by the current situation, and some of the ill effects were well evidenced in Prof McWilliams’s speech. Finally, I urge the Minister to end that uncertainty and to secure ring-fenced funding for this care and treatment.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I am pleased to take part in the debate. I agree with the last two Members that we must act urgently to ensure that better maternity services are available for Belfast, and south Belfast in particular. The question of maternity services has been unresolved for far too long. Other Members have outlined its various phases, events, reviews and inquiries. The longer the debate continues, the longer the Health Service provision for women suffers. It is far below what is acceptable.
I was glad that Ms McWilliams introduced the issue of women’s health in general. It is not just a matter of maternity services; it covers many complex issues, which, along with maternity services, must be placed at the top of the Assembly’s health agenda. Full gynaecological services must be maintained to a high standard, and they must be built, maintained and developed on the Belfast City Hospital site. Gynaecological services need considerable investment. Much of that investment must be made in parallel with the new cancer centre at Belfast City Hospital, because much gynaecological ill health is associated with cancer risks and scares.
New life — the pregnant woman, the unborn baby and the newborn child on its mother’s knee — stirs an emotional response in most of us. However, many women incur disease or injury as a consequence of maternity and childbearing,. Because we were concerned by the publicity over certain issues of women’s health, a few years ago my partners and I carried out a survey of about 200 women between 45 and 55 who were not seeking medical attention. Of the 200, 199 required attention but were not seeking it. Many of those women’s problems arose either directly or indirectly as a result of childbirth. Consequently, many of those women were severely embarrassed, if not severely handicapped.
It is not enough to discuss childbirth; the Assembly must make women’s health a higher priority. As a GP, I have found that many middle-aged women between 45 and 55 look after everybody but themselves — their children, their grandchildren, their husbands and, often, elderly parents. Their own priorities and health are not served.
I hope that the Minister responds to my plea. It is essential that we resolve the debate about maternity services and attempt to ensure that services are not only maintained but improved in a brand new hospital designed to meet the needs of all mothers. Shoehorning the Jubilee into the Royal Hospital was perhaps efficient and cost-effective, but it was certainly not as effective as regards patient satisfaction as it should have been. There is an overload. The building cannot cope because its facilities are inadequate most of the time. We should remember that not all babies are born to schedule. There may be a large number of births one week and a smaller number the next. The hospital could cope if the number remained level, but in some weeks there are more births than others.
Choice is necessary and important. Cost may be an issue, but the quality of care, including the surrounding social care, is equally important. It is not just an issue of the mother and her unborn child; extended families must also be considered and accommodated.
Every child has the right to be born in circumstances that provide the best possible start to life. The debate between the Jubilee and the Royal Maternity and the opposing claims and counter-claims drew the focus on the rivalry between the two institutions before their amalgamation. It became a political football, and the focus of the debate was switched from where it should have been — building the new hospital. The new hospital should have been half-built by now and well on its way to being established.
The old Jubilee site was user-friendly and accommodating. Many are worried that, since the move, the Royal has dominated maternity services. Traditionally, the Royal was seen as less user-friendly and perhaps more clinical. I hope that that will change. Any new hospital should be extremely user-friendly, not just for the mother and the child but for the extended family.
Unfortunately, many will see the debate about the new maternity hospital as one institution’s ambitions of empire building. Although the debate was not absolutely conclusive, the argument that the maternity hospital had to be based close to the children’s hospital appears to have won. Extended gynaecological services, and women’s health services generally, should perhaps be located close to the new cancer centre at the City Hospital in the long term. They are not a thousand miles apart, but that proximity is nevertheless important for the plethora of gynaecological needs that relate to cancer pathology rather than maternity provision.

Mr Mark Robinson: Madam Deputy Speaker, in welcoming the opportunity to take part in this discussion today, I would commend Monica McWilliams for securing this timely Adjournment debate on an issue of such importance.
Due to the political and legal wrangling which previously surrounded the debate on the location of maternity services in Belfast, nearly three years later we are no nearer to a decision. The fact that the report, which will be made available this month, will then be put out for a further 12-week consultation process once again delays the making of a final decision. I cannot understand how such an important subject has been allowed to fall so far behind schedule.
This debate has been ongoing for a number of years, and the length of time which the Department of Health has taken in producing this report has, in fact, further damaged the delivery of maternity services in Belfast, thus posing further delays on the building of a state-of-the-art maternity unit which would provide many benefits to expectant mothers.
I trust that this consultation process will be used far more effectively than it was previously, when the most important people in the debate — mothers — were not adequately consulted. It is important that all parties concerned are afforded the opportunity to take part in the consultation process and to have their views made known. The primary concern in the debate is that any decision which is made will be of benefit to those requiring the use of maternity services and that women will receive the best possible maternity services.
The process has been dogged by delay after delay after delay. Unfortunately, the Department, which will be making its report available later this month, has allowed the process to fall further behind schedule. This delay is further damaging the Health Service, which is already at breaking point and is lurching from one crisis to another. Since maternity services were located to the Royal Hospitals, it has become clear that it is not adequately equipped to take on the extra responsibility which came with this change in location. Maternity wards at the Royal Victoria Hospital are under severe pressure and are severely overcrowded, meaning that many new or expectant mothers are not receiving one-to-one personal care from midwives.
Staffing levels are also under tremendous pressure and morale is at an all-time low, which accounts for the increase in the numbers leaving the profession. We cannot afford to get this decision wrong. Modern maternity services require modern maternity facilities and unfortunately the Royal Hospitals are currently not in a position to offer that standard of service.
The decision which is made regarding the location of maternity services in Belfast must not be politically motivated and must be based on what is best for the people who will access these services. Any decision which is reached must take into account the views which are received during the consultation process. These opinions cannot and must not be ignored. That consultation process will take up much time and money, money that would be better spent being pumped into our health system, which is at breaking point.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I do not want to rehash the unseemly political wrangle that occurred during the debate about services for the Royal Victoria Hospital and Belfast City Hospital, which led to a judicial review after the Minister had made her decision.
The underlying theme of the debate should be care for the mother and the child. It should focus on care of pregnant women who are at the stage when they must go to hospital and the need to ensure that proper services are provided for them wherever they are taken. There is no doubt that all of Belfast needs adequate maternity services. Moreover, services in the rest of the North of Ireland are inadequate. A new state-of-the-art facility is needed in Belfast, but I understand the Minister’s caution, given the possibility of another judicial review.
We must examine maternity services throughout the Six Counties. Rural areas deserve a first-class service as much as any other area. When that debate took place three years ago, rural residents were angry that two major hospitals that stood cheek by jowl were engaged in a controversial argument over where the maternity services should be placed, while west of the Bann and other areas had no adequate maternity service. I welcome the introduction of the two pilot stand-alone midwifery-led units in Downpatrick and west of the Bann, which will give women more choice. I urge the Minister to instigate a review of those pilot units as soon as possible.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I was not aware that a decision had been taken on where the midwifery-led unit for the east of the Province is to be situated. I know that it was to be a choice between Lagan Valley and Downpatrick. Perhaps the Member knows something that we do not.
I am aware that people in rural areas may have asked those questions about the Royal and Jubilee Maternity Hospitals. However, I emphasise that it is the regional centre and, at that time, there were more than 6,000 births. Women from rural areas were, therefore, dependent on the decision regarding the location of the new centralised maternity hospital because, in the long run, many of them would have to use it.

Mr John Kelly: Perhaps I should have said "east of Belfast", but Mick Murphy was whispering in my ear and that might have put Downpatrick into my mind.
East of Belfast and west of the Bann, I was urging the Minister to provide women with greater choice, and the two pilot stand-alone midwifery-led units will do that and get away from the controversy between the Royal Victoria Hospital and Belfast City Hospital. I urge the Minister to instigate a review of those pilot units as soon as possible to enable the establishment of as many midwifery-led units as are needed. It is an excellent idea which should be pursued. People west of the Bann — and I must be parochial — are very much taken with it.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Is ceist thábhachtach le tamall anuas í soláthar seirbhísí lárnaithe máithreachais i mBéal Feirste. Tháinig athruithe suntasacha ar sholáthar seirbhísí máithreachais i mBéal Feirste le blianta beaga anuas, agus is beag ábhar a bhí chomh conspóideach nó a spreag oiread spéise agus díospóireachta. Léiríonn díospóireacht an lae inniu go bhfuilimid uilig aontaithe go bhfuil na seirbhísí is fearr tuillte ag máithreacha agus ag leanaí. Glacaim leis go bhfuil difríochtaí móra agus dáiríre ann maidir le conas is fearr seirbhísí máithreachais a sholáthar. Tá sé de chúram ormsa a dhéanamh amach cé na socruithe seirbhíse is fearr a sholáthróidh seirbhísí máithreachais éifeachtacha sábháilte nua-aimseartha i mBéal Feirste agus taobh amuigh de.
Tá mé tiomanta an t-ábhar seo a thabhairt chun críche; críoch a chinnteoidh go mbeidh na seirbhísí máithreachais is fearr agus is inmharthanaí ann do mhná, do mháithreacha agus do leanaí sa todhchaí.
Mar is eol do Chomhaltaí, nascadh seirbhísí an Ospidéil Mháithreachais Ríoga agus Ospidéil Mháithreachais na hIubhaile i mBealtaine 2002. Ní raibh sé seo beartaithe ach mar bheart eatramhach, agus ag an am sin ba é an t-aon rogha praiticiúil é. Tuigim an imní atá ar Chomhaltaí go bhfuil an foirgneamh seo sean agus nach bhfuil sé cóirithe le seirbhís mháithreachais ardchaighdeáin a sholáthar don aonú agus fiche céad. Sin an fáth a bhfuil mé ag féacháil le cinneadh a dhéanamh ar shocruithe seirbhíse sa todhchaí.
For some time, the provision of centralised maternity services in Belfast has been an important issue. There have been significant changes in the delivery of maternity services in Belfast in recent years, and few issues have proved so controversial or generated so much interest and passionate debate.
Today’s debate has, once again, demonstrated our shared agreement that women, mothers and babies deserve the best possible services. I appreciate that there were genuine and strongly held differences of opinion with regard to the best configuration and delivery of maternity services. It is my task to determine the arrangements that best deliver modern, safe and effective services which cover Belfast and beyond. I am committed to bringing this issue to a conclusion that ensures that we have the best and most sustainable maternity services for women, mothers and babies in years to come.
During the debate, Members said that services at the Jubilee and Royal Maternity Hospitals were amalgamated at the Royal Maternity Hospital in May 2002. That was intended only as an interim measure and, at that time, was the only practical option available.
I recognise Members’ concerns that the current building is old and ill equipped to deliver a quality maternity service for the twenty-first century, which is why I am seeking to reach a decision on the future service arrangements. Recognising that the current facility has deficiencies, I fully endorse Members’ comments on the commitment, and it is vital that we ensure that the new facility is brought forward to the benefit of all. I also pay tribute to the dedication of the staff of the hospitals and all the staff of the Royal Jubilee Maternity Hospital are to be commended for delivering a high-quality service in sometimes less than ideal circumstances. I fully accept the need to resolve the issue. Staff deserve a modern working environment, and mothers and babies deserve the best possible service.
Members referred to the various delays since 1996 in bringing the issue to a successful resolution. Monica McWilliams, in particular, referred to my statement of January 2000, in which I said:
"It is my firm intention to have the new hospital in place in five to six years’ time".
I also said:
"This issue has been on the table since 1996. This long period of uncertainty has not been good for maternity services, either locally or regionally. It has not been good for staff, who have seen earlier decisions come and go, and it most certainly has not been good for mothers-to-be."
At that time, my decision was overturned, which, of course, impacted on the timing of the project.
In respect of the forthcoming consultation and the process that I have re-established, I have been determined from the outset to ensure that the process is open, thorough and inclusive. This has taken some time. However, if we are finally to move towards a new hospital, I need hardly remind Members of the importance of getting the process right. We can ill afford another round of delay, occasioned by a further legal challenge.
The current process is built around a specification for the new maternity unit. When I announced details of it in June 2001, I stated:
"Following a period of public consultation the specification will be formally issued to the Belfast City Hospital and Royal Group of Hospitals Trusts, and each will be invited to submit proposals for developing the maternity unit on their respective sites."
At that time, I also confirmed that the trusts’ proposals would form the basis of a second consultation process, which has the advantage of being open and transparent.
Importantly, it also gives ownership of the options to the two trusts and facilitates an open and free discussion of the issues. I could have initiated a less complex process, which would have allowed me to arrive at a decision much earlier. However, I determined that it was much more important that the approach was sufficiently robust to address the concerns of all parties, to provide for a final decision demonstrably based on the facts, and that such a process should address some of the questions that Members asked today about the involvement of those who wish to make use of the service.
In the light of the responses to the initial consultation process, the specification had to be amended, primarily to enable the trusts to consider the option of centralising gynaecology services alongside, or as part of, the centralised maternity hospital. In the light of that additional option, it was necessary to extend the time frame for the development of the proposals. Officials did, however, make it clear to the Committee that they expected the document to be available by the end of September 2002. I can confirm that the consultation document is being printed and will be issued within the next two weeks.
That document is extensive. It incorporates the trust’s proposals as well as the health estates’ professional assessment of the existing Royal Jubilee Maternity Service. Both trusts have sought to demonstrate the particular advantages that their respective sites can offer.
The inability of the neonatal unit to accept admissions is an infrequent occurrence, but it has happened three or four times in the past two and a half years. Indeed, it occurred in the Royal Maternity Hospital and in the Jubilee Maternity Hospital prior to the amalgamation.
Ms McWilliams asked whether I had visited the Royal Jubilee Maternity Service recently. I visited that unit to observe its operation, but in recent weeks senior officials from my Department have visited the hospital on three occasions. I am being kept fully informed of the state of the services there.
In the summer there was an incident in which a sewer in the hospital became blocked, but relevant experts addressed the problem immediately. Unfortunately, the contractor worsened the problem briefly before it was resolved rapidly. That is not a repetitive problem. The steam problem was caused by a broken bedpan washer and was repaired immediately. Such incidents can and do occur in any such facility.
An economic appraisal suggested that a new hospital would cost £204 million. The likely cost of such a hospital is expected to be between £30 million and £40 million at today’s prices. It is unclear from where that figure of £204 million comes; it could possibly represent the present net value of a time stream of services over an extended period.
In line with normal practice, funding for a new facility is not determined until the final business case has been agreed, and this is still some way off. I cannot seek to commission a new building before I have reached a formal decision about its necessity. The accepted rules about public sector investment require that my Department consider a range of options. Those include a refurbishment option, which will be included in the consultation document; however, in this case, I am certain that this is not a viable way forward. As I have said, the health estates have taken that forward. I will examine the best route to secure funding once I have reached a decision. My previous decision on the matter was overturned, so I must make a new one.
I have deliberately chosen to follow an open and transparent approach to developing and consulting on proposals that will ensure that mothers are adequately consulted. Interest groups and patients’ representatives have been involved at each stage. I look forward to mothers and families being involved fully in the forthcoming consultation process, and I encourage them to play a full role. As I said, I shall issue the document for public consultation within the next two weeks. I am committed to reaching a final decision as soon as is practicable. However, Members know that there are certain question marks over how that will proceed in the present circumstances.
I have made no decisions about the merits of either site or the need for linkages to particular services. I aim to make the information available so that a considered and informed debate on this important issue can take place. As I have stated previously, mothers and babies deserve, and have the right to expect, the best possible maternity services. That must be our primary concern.
The debate today has flagged up some important issues that I hope will be picked up on more fully in the forthcoming consultation. I listened carefully to Committee members’ views and look forward to their further advice as the consultation proceeds. I am delighted that, as a result of the matter being raised by Ms McWilliams, we have been able to consider it.
I encourage Members to consider the consultation document carefully and to reserve judgement on the location of the maternity hospital until they have had a chance to consider and digest the proposals presented by the trust.
Adjourned at 6.20 pm.